1954-06-26

Mr, Auguste Vincent (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have in my hand a very amusing article signed by Tempus which appeared in the Financial Times of June 25 in which reference was made to the member for the constituency of Longueuil. I have Hansard at hand to prove that I have addressed the house on nine different occasions during this session, my first in parliament. I am most amused to think that these speeches and remarks, according to Tempus, might have been delivered directly from my bathtub in St. Lambert, Quebec. Frankly, Mandrake the magician could not have done better. As for Tempus, who wishes to have a photograph of me, I have tried to meet him face to face for the past three days but have not been able to. I have not been able to see him. He did not even call me. It is proper to say that "Tempus fugit". Therefore I wish to reassure him that as soon as I get back to Montreal I will send him a photograph with my best regards.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Prior to April 8, 1954, were any arrangements or orders in effect for the transmission to Royal Canadian Air Force stations from which aircraft operate, situate on or near civilian aircraft routes, of the flight schedules of such civilian aircraft?
2.	If so, what were the arrangements?
3.	Did orders then exist requiring the communication of such information, or the relevant parts thereof, as received by such stations, to all personnel having responsibility for the operation of or actually operating, aircraft from such Royal Canadian Air Force stations and covering the course of action to be followed by such aircraft under the circumstances?
4.	If so, what were the arrangements or orders?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2. Aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force are subject to the same flying regulations as are other aircraft. When flying under weather conditions requiring instrument flying, special rules apply and all
aircraft, whether civil or military, are controlled by Department of Transport air traffic control centres. Under I.F.R. conditions, in addition to being separated, R.C.A.F. and other airfields are kept fully informed of the whereabouts of other aircraft in the vicinity. Under weather conditions, when visible flying rules apply, all aircraft provide for their own separation by conforming with the normal rules of the air.
3 and 4. When operating under instrument flight rules in or near air space controlled by Department of Transport air traffic centre, R.C.A.F., like civil aircraft, must obtain clearance from air traffic control and consequently, both R.C.A.F. and civilian personnel having responsibility for the operation of aircraft, receive communication of the information referred to. Under visual flight conditions, it is the responsibility of pilots to maintain the proper separation of aircraft.


CAMP GAGETOWN, N.B.
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	Has the government purchased, leased or taken over land known as Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick for defence purposes?
2.	If so, what was the purchase price or terms of the lease?
3.	Has the government sold or leased the pulp-wood rights on this land to any persons or company?
4.	If so, to whom and on what terms?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The total purchase price is not yet known as negotiations with former owners are not yet complete.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
56. Departmental administration, $340,230.
Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, last night the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration gave us a brief review of the activities of his department, outlining the work done by the three main branches. In my remarks this morning I shall confine myself pretty well to the immigration branch. First of all, however, I wish to express regret that this
6788	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration department seems to be one which is always left until the last minute when intelligent discussion and adequate review are entirely impossible.
The minister has been pressed on a number of occasions this year to bring on his estimates somewhat in advance of the last day. He has indicated from time to time that he feels his department has been adequately discussed on previous occasions. The fact is that we have not had an adequate or full discussion of this department since 1950, and that for the three years since then until the present time the department has in fact been discussed for approximately only three days and one hour. I looked up the record. In 1951 this department was discussed for one day, and that actually was not a full day, the discussion only occupying 22 pages of Hansard which, according to my calculations, would be somewhere between two and three hours. That was on June 28. The session ended that year on June 30.
In 1952 again the department was discussed on only one day, the main estimates occupying again only 22 pages of Hansard or, being generous, a discussion of perhaps three hours. That was on July 4, the day of prorogation. In 1953, last year, it was discussed on three occasions. The first was the end of the evening on April 23 when the , discussion occupied 74 pages of Hansard. The department was called on the next day, April 24, when the full day was devoted to it. However, at that time there were morning sittings and many committees sitting, and in fact one member complained that he had not been able to be here although he had some things he wanted to say. It was not called again until May 14 when it was discussed for approximately one minute, just long enough to carry one item.
These figures show, as I say, that since 1950 we have been able to discuss this department only on two days for about 3 hours each, one other full day, and one hour on another day. And again in 1954 we find ourselves in the position where this department is left until the very close of the session when we are up against a deadline, and because of the atmosphere in which we are now working it is just not sensible to suggest that we can have a proper discussion of the affairs of this very important branch of government.
Looking through the records of past discussions to find out what was said, I find that there is a reason which occurs to mind immediately why the minister should leave his department always until this stage of the session. It has not been adequately discussed since 1950 for the reason that in 1950,


when there was time to have an adequate discussion, the department was very severely criticized. It was severely criticized by a number of members on the government side of the house, who had some quite severe things to say about the policy or lack of policy being followed in the administration, particularly of the immigration branch of the department. I can well understand why the minister, therefore, is anxious to avoid discussion of his estimates so far as possible and has been successful in doing so.
I notice that in the debate of 1950 the hon. member for Rosedale made a fairly extensive review of the department. He made a statement with which, as a matter of fact, I cannot agree, when he said that in our immigration policy preference is given to immigrants of English, Irish, Scottish, French and American extraction. In the course of the same debate the hon. member for Spadina spoke at some length and his remarks will be found at pages 3584 and following of Hansard for 1950. He criticized the policy of the government as being "not a policy at all". He went on to say:
My purpose in speaking tonight is to try to build a fire under the minister and the department so that he may get on with his job.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, that the fire lighted by the hon. member for Spadina, if in fact it was lighted, appears to have burned out some years ago, so what we are doing now is raking over some rather dead ashes.
The hon. member for Spadina at page 3586 of Hansard also spoke in a most earnest manner urging the government to foster immigration from the United Kingdom. I regret to say that it is my view, according to the figures which have been placed on Hansard each year in the course of this review, that that has not been done to the extent it should have been.
What happened after these efforts in 1950? In 1951 we had a good year in immigration. There were some 190,000 immigrants admitted to Canada. The totals admitted during the next three years declined substantially from that level, so that not only have we a decline in the numbers being admitted but it is my view that the policy laid out by the government in 1947 by the then prime minister, and since that time subscribed to and reiterated by the present minister, is not being fulfilled. I have reference particularly to the situation regarding the maintenance of the ethnic balance of this country. If one looks at the figures put on the record again by the minister last night, and I have them in detail before me in a release from the statistical unit of the department, it will be seen that when you have 47,077 from the

United Kingdom plus 9,000 from the United States, making a total of 56,000 of that category admitted in the year, and in the same year you have 68,675 north Europeans, including 35,015 Germans and you have 43,737 others, including 24,219 from Italy, it is not possible to agree with the minister when he says the policy of preserving the ethnic balance within the country is being followed.
From time to time we on this side of the house have made it perfectly clear we do not ask for any special preference being given to any one country as a source of origin of immigration or that we should concentrate exclusively on bringing in immigrants from that country. 1 want to reiterate that position here this morning. We subscribed to the view that Canada should take immigrants who are capable of being absorbed into both our economic and cultural background from any country where suitable immigrants offer. But we do say that should be tempered, if you like, to fit in with this policy of maintaining the ethnic balance and, not distorting the cultural or economic situation in Canada. The figures which I have placed upon the record as to the experience in that regard indicate clearly that principle is not being observed.
We have also, from time to time, criticized the government for apparent inability to work out an intelligent and vigorous application of the assisted passage loan scheme as applied to the United Kingdom, so that we may encourage more immigration from there. I have been given information as to the countries in which that scheme was applied, and the number of immigrants brought forward under that scheme since February, 1951, up to December 31, 1952, which I was given to understand was the last day for which figures were available.


Mr. Harris:: I made a return in the house which brought it down to some time this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I confess, then, that I have overlooked that. If the figures up to date present a different picture from the one I have drawn as a result of the figures I have, then I hope the minister will be quick to point it out. Up to that time, out of a total of 78,403 admitted, there were 4,361 from the United Kingdom; 22,224 from Germany and Austria, and a very small number, something in the neighbourhood of 1,700 or 1,800 from other European countries. The proportions between those countries from which immigrants have come under this scheme worked out at approximately 15-4 per cent from the United Kingdom, 78-2 per cent from
26,	1954	6789
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Germany and Austria and 6-3 per cent from elsewhere. Once again the figures show that with respect to preserving the ethnic balance of this country, the assisted passage loan scheme is not being equitably applied to the different countries of Europe, in that the United Kingdom has a disproportionately low number of immigrants coming out under that scheme.
Now, there are other matters which are causing concern in connection with the immigration policy of the government. One of these is the picture with respect to the fact that, of the large number of immigrants coming from Italy, practically none came from the north. I draw the attention of the committee to a series of articles appearing recently in the Vancouver Sun and written by Stanley Burke. He pointed out that last year Canada had taken more immigrants from Italy than any other country had taken. He obtained figures from the Italian government which showed that 24,000 went to Canada, and only 400 returned. Out of
10,000	who went to the United States, 2,400 returned. Immigrants to the Argentine totalled 13,000, and almost that many made the "disillusioned" trip home.
Now, sir, I do not mean to say that we should not take immigrants from that country. They have made good citizens. What is pointed out is that the great bulk of those who have been coming so far appear to have been from southern Italy. What is suggested, and I should like to hear the minister's comments on the matter, is that we should, in so far as our industrialization is increasing, give more attention to immigrants from northern Italy. Those who come from southern Italy at the moment tend to be a rural people but they do not fit in well with the present Canadian farm picture. While they are farmers themselves, they are accustomed to living in villages, in a very closely integrated communal life, and they find life on Canadian farms somewhat lonesome so they tend to gravitate immediately back to the city. Well, when they get to the city they are not at all qualified or trained as industrial workers, and so they find themselves completely out of place. The suggestion has been made that in our policy of soliciting immigrants from Italy we should pay more attention than we do to those in northern Italy. Experience has shown that the latter make excellent Canadian citizens, with background of industrial and technical training. These people would be much easier to fit into the Canadian scene than those drawn exclusively from southern Italy.
6790	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
What I have said is by way of a general survey of the immigration picture as I see it today. I should like now to turn for a moment to some particular criticisms of the department, and to say I find that there are a number of procedures being followed today which impose hardships and unfairness in many cases.
I have in mind the situation of the Chinese who are attempting to bring over their children. I know the minister has received a brief on this matter from the Chinese benevolent association, dated April 1954. I shall not go into the details in this connection, but I think it is important to point out that the department still appears to attach undue and rigid importance to the results of X-ray examinations. We have had it out with the minister before, where Chinese here in Canada want their children to be brought in. The department in Hong Kong has the children examined and X-ray photographs are taken. If the department feels that the X-ray photographs indicate a bone structure of lesser or greater maturity than might be expected in the child for whom application is made, they say that according to the X-ray picture they cannot accept this child as the one applied for.
The department adheres rigidly to the decision, notwithstanding the fact that the father may have produced testimony from relations here and back in China, as well as his own sworn affidavit, establishing on the basis of evidence from those who know the facts that this child is his own.
According to my information, the United States has rejected this X-ray procedure. While they may not have rejected it completely, they laid down the principle in the forties that where there was positive evidence, not otherwise contested, that the child was in fact the child applied for, then it was not a proper course to rely upon X-ray evidence discrediting identity. A number of cases in the United States established that, and the principle they follow is that unless there is direct evidence to contradict the evidence of the applicant, then the evidence of the applicant prevails. However, that principle is not being followed in Canada, and there are a number of cases of unfairness resulting in respect of these applicants for admission from China. We are dealing here, not with Chinese applying to come to Canada, but with people who morally and legally are in fact Canadian citizens, because they are the children of Canadian citizens. So I cannot understand why the department adheres so rigidly to this and other administrative practices which in fact make discrimination between Canadian citizens.


Those principles are not followed in the case of applications from other Canadian citizens but only, so far as I can make out, in the case of applications from Chinese. And I would suggest that in the light of certain recent court decisions, particularly that of Leong Ba Chi, if I have the name right, the department would be well advised' to review its administrative practice in this field, and not only to avoid having its own administrative decisions reversed by the courts but also to avoid putting these applicants to such great expense.
In the instance to which I have referred, where the question arose as to whether the child was in fact the child of the applicant- and it was not based upon X-rays, but rather on a question of law-it had to be taken to the Supreme Court'of Canada, and one can imagine the expense to the applicant and the incidental cost as well as the heartbreak in the meantime until this barrier of administrative obstinacy was broken down, and the courts saw to it that justice was done.
Another series of incidents recently have given rise to a feeling of concern in connection with deportation orders made under circumstances which seemed to be unfair to those persons ordered for deportation. I am going to refer to only one of these cases, to which reference is made in the Ottawa Journal of April 24. This is the case of Mrs. Shirley Brent.
The article is headed "Justice Raps Deport Order-Even He Can't Understand It." The article is dated at Toronto, and is a Canadian Press report. It states:
Mr. Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Ontario criticized the Canadian immigration department Friday and said it should have disclosed any information it had against Mrs. Shirley Brent, 23, of Buffalo, N.Y.
He deferred judgment in the matter. The article goes on:
Testimony was the woman entered Canada as a visitor January 1 as Shirley Taylor and was married to Barry Brent, of Toronto, March 9. On January 28 she appeared before an immigration board and was told she "didn't meet requirements".
John D. Pickup, of Toronto, representing the immigration department, said no reasons had to be given under the statutes.
"Fine state of affairs in this country where there is supposed to be justice," said Mr. Justice Wilson.
Then the report goes on to summarize the argument of Mr. Pickup as to the reasons why the department did not disclose the details behind the order. It then continues:
Said Mr. Justice Wilson: "That is perfectly plain to the immigration people, but I must confess 1 would like you to explain it to me."


Mr. Pickup:: "It could be that she might become a public charge, or that she lacked education, or because of political affiliations.


Mr. Justice Wilson:: "But surely, in fairness, the department should indicate what her shortcomings are; that's an illustration of how people coming to this country don't get fair treatment."
That is a fact which is causing concern. On a number of occasions I have been in conversation with people acting for prospective immigrants, although I do not think I have been in actual conversation with anyone acting for a prospective deportee. But where they are acting for a prospective immigrant they may get a rejection letter from the department saying, "We have to advise you that your application for the admission of this person cannot be granted." Then they have the greatest difficulty in finding out from the department the reasons why the application cannot be granted. They ask for a review. The reason they ask for the review is that they hope that in the course of the review some reason will be elicited, and the case against the application made clear to them, so that they will know what case they have to meet and whether in fact the reasons given by the department are reasons which in their opinion are valid, under the present immigration law, or whether they consider the department is misapplying or misinterpreting the present regulations.
But again they may receive a letter to the effect-"We regret to inform you that, after review, it is not possible to grant the application." Then the question will be asked: Where do we go from there? How do we go about discussing the merits of the case with the department, if we cannot be told on what grounds the department rejects the application?
I can see that there is one branch of cases- and I submit one only-where there is justification for not giving all the reasons, and that is where an applicant is rejected on grounds of security. That would be a case where, upon investigation, it has been disclosed that there is some background indicating that, for reasons of loyalty, such person would not be a desirable immigrant. I can understand that the department certainly should not disclose the details, because of the principle which is generally accepted that to disclose the details, where the information came from, when it was received, and so on, would enable those hostile powers, powers which are not friendly to Canada, to get details of our security system. I submit, however, that in cases where it is relied upon as the reason against the admission, still that fact should be stated.
I agree there is justification in that one type of case for the department not to go into the details, but I cannot see any justification in any other instance for the department not
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to give detailed reasons why it refuses admission, so that the applicant and his representatives will know what case they have to meet and can decide whether to press it further and whether, as I say, they agree the department is correctly interpreting the immigration laws, or whether in their view they are not, so that the matter could be taken further. At the present time they are at a loss to know what to do when they get this polite but improperly blank refusal to grant the application.
In this connection I note the number of cases where, in respect to the application for the admission of children of Chinese who are Canadian citizens, as well as in other cases, this feeling is becoming widespread. The representatives of the applicants do not know where or how to deal with it. I say we are entitled to hear from the minister this morning a review of details of the administrative practices within the department by which they deal with these applications. I urge that in future in all cases coming up for disposal the department should indicate to the applicant or his representative the reasons for its rejection of the application.
There is one interesting set of figures that I want to place upon the record in closing this survey of immigration, Mr. Chairman. The minister told us last night that, according to the review of Canada's absorptive capacity made this year, the government feels that approximately the same number as last year could safely be admitted to Canada. He did tell us, however, that a review of economic conditions in Canada indicated, if I understood him correctly, that prospective immigrants overseas should be given a stark and stern picture of the employment opportunities in Canada so that they would not arrive here and be disappointed on finding that the opportunities are not those which they have expected. If I heard him correctly, he went on to say that as a result of what I might call the stern outline which is to be given to these applicants, there may be a slightly reduced number coming this year in comparison with the number who came last year.
That is a sound policy, and perhaps it is based on past experience. I know cases have been drawn to the attention of hon. members of immigrants complaining that they were given a rosy picture. They came out and found that conditions were different and they felt that they were unfairly treated. That is most undesirable. We want in Canada people who are able to face hardships and surmount them. That has been our tradition; it would be unwise and unfair to encourage people to come

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration here under the impression that there are opportunities which may not be realized when they get here. This emphasizes the need for care, and I am glad that the department is going to follow that policy.
The other day I drew the minister's attention to the case of an immigrant from Germany who, apparently because of misapprehension on the part of the immigration officers, had been given to understand that he could obtain employment as an aircraft engineer. That was his employment in Germany. When he arrived here he found that, by the terms of a regulation made in Canada, he could not be licensed unless he was a Canadian citizen or came from a country where there were reciprocal arrangements with Canada in that regard, and it so happened that Germany is not such a country. I admit this is rather a technical matter, and it is perhaps asking the immigration officer to be superhuman to know all the regulations in that field. I expect the information was given in good faith over in Germany, but I cite it as an example of the care which is necessary so as not to mislead prospective immigrants.
In the picture presented by the minister's review his statement that there might be a somewhat smaller number coming to Canada as compared with last year is interesting. I hold in my hand a survey made by the Canadian Citizenship Council appearing in their publication "Citizenship Items" of February, 1954. I want to place this picture before the committee because I think it would be well for the department and the government to review their impression of the absorptive capacity of Canada. I will read the article in extenso because it is put in a clear and impressive form. It is headed: "How fast are we growing?" Before I get into the article I should say that very frequently the government, particularly, and others, say that we are now taking in all that we can practically absorb into Canada this year, and that Canada's immigration policy is aggressive and contributing substantially to the growth of the nation. The article is as follows:
Some have said "figures don't lie": others that "you can do anything with figures".
We have assembled here, obtained from authoritative sources, figures relating to our population growth during the decade ending June 30, 1951. In that time our population increased from 11,507,000 to 14,009,000 (some 2,502,000, including 349,000 when Newfoundland became the tenth province).
The greatest factor was that of natural increase. Births exceeded deaths by nearly two million.
The net migration figures-that is, immigration less emigration-are rather interesting. During the decade, some 548,000 newcomers came to Canada, while some 388,000 persons departed to take up residence elsewhere, leaving a net gain by migration of only 160,000, or an average of about 16,000

per year. As at least 6,000 of these were dependents, net migration in the decade did not add to the labour force of the country much over -2 per cent each year.
However, this decade included in its first half war years, when immigration was relatively light compared with more recent years. But if we look at the figures for the period of June 30, 1945 to June 30, 1951, we find that immigration totalled 464,000, emigration 293,000, leaving a net of 171,000, or an approximate average of 34,200 per year. This would mean an approximate addition to the labour force of less than 20,000 per year.
I have added the words "per year" because there appears to be a slight omission in the actual text. I continue:
From time to time we have heard, and read, that Canada's absorptive capacity, as far as immigration is concerned, is about 2 per cent a year. Net migration for the decade resulted in an average yearly increase of only .13 per cent, and for the second half, only -28 per cent.
When we first glanced at these figures, we were somehow reminded of Lewis Carroll. The Queen is speaking. "A slow sort of country. Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you must get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that."
The situation, of course, is not quite like that. However the figures do suggest that for the decade period, in order to replenish the loss through emigration, we had to average about 40,000 newcomers per year, and during the second half of the decade, about 60,000. For during the decade, for every 55 immigrants, we lost through emigration 39 persons.
On the basis of that conclusion, which appears to be accurate and to be substantiated by the figures, one can see, Mr. Chairman, that if in order to replenish losses through emigration we had to take in about
60,000	immigrants, then in a year when we take in 168,000 immigrants we are adding to the net population only slightly over 100,000 persons a year by immigration.
Now, in a population of approximately 14,-
500,000	and in a country with the tremendous growth potential of Canada, I think those figures are interesting and they cast an important light on this question of whether we are approaching our absorptive capacity, and I submit that they indicate that the department should take a good new look at this problem from the point of view of ascertaining whether they are in fact pursuing an aggressive and vigorous policy of immigration, as the minister has frequently claimed we are.
I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of May 5 headed, "Harris Defends Government Stand on Quebec Tax". I do not know how that crept in but apparently the minister had something to say on that subject as well. But this clipping contains these extracts:
Canada will have a population of about 23 million In 1974, Citizenship Minister Harris predicted last night.

Mr. Harris, in charge of citizenship and immigration, said in an address over the political free time series of the C.B.C.:
"If I may . . . peer into the future, it would be to say that in 20 years we shall have about 23 million people instead of 15 million people; that we shall be consuming then nearly all the beef, pork and similar farm products that we produce and pay our farmers a good price for them; that our workmen will have a higher . . . standard of living, and that our exports will not be subject to the fluctuations of one or two specialized markets."
All of which, Mr. Chairman, is a very pleasant and gratifying picture and I hope it is fulfilled. But I would submit that the rate of growth as forecast by the minister is perhaps unduly pessimistic, although perhaps it is realistic in the light of the government's snail-pace immigration policy. A growth in population from 15 million to 23 million would mean an approximate growth of 8 million people, and for that to be realized over 20 years would work out, as I calculate it, to about 400,000 people a year. Therefore, on the basis of that figure of
400,000	people, since the present annual net gain by immigration would appear to be approximately 100,000, that leaves the natural increase in the present population to account for the remainder of approximately 300,000 per year. The government has no control over the birth rate; and taking the over-all picture for the rate of growth, at least by immigration, that appears to me to be a very cautious and unduly slow rate of growth to be predicted for this country, particularly in the light of predictions that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. That might have to be modified as a result of government inaction to a prediction that the second half of the twentieth century belongs to Canada, and certainly if this forecast by the minister is to be fulfilled it will have to be postponed further and modified to read that the first half of the twenty-first century belongs to Canada. But I hope that this government will not be in power sufficiently long to retard Canada's rate of growth to that extent.
That, Mr. Chairman, about completes the review I had intended to undertake of the immigration situation in Canada today. We have in the past benefited enormously by the immigration we have had, and we believe that that experience and that pattern can be repeated in the future. We believe, however, that the government is not showing any signs of doing what it said it intended to do, that is, pursue a vigorous and realistic immigration policy, or of pursuing that also within the principle the government itself laid down, the principle of maintaining the ethnic balance of the country.
I submit that the figures I have placed on the record establish the inadequacies of the
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration government's present program in these respects, and I urge the minister and hon. members opposite-as the hon. member for Spa-dina did in 1950-to take out their flints and stones and try once again to strike a spark which will light a fire under the immigration department of this government.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kamloops has, I think, given a very interesting criticism and review of some of our immigration policies, and I too propose to say something about immigration and then perhaps turn to the other departments of government which are administered by the present minister of immigration.
I think, of course, that immigration, if it is to be successful, must be realistic. It must give the people who come into this country a true impression of the kind of country to which they are coming, the kind of life they may expect to lead in this country, and we who are here already should give them a welcoming hand.
Perhaps I can say this as one who was an immigrant to this country almost 45 years ago. I say this because in my first year or two I fell in among a friendly group of Canadian citizens in western Canada, and through them I became a very happy citizen of this country in which since then my life has been and will be spent.
Therefore, I think that one of the things that the people across our country should do is to do their level best to welcome immigrants when they come into the country and assist them in finding their feet in what is, after all, a very new life for all of them.
During my 45 years' experience in western Canada I have seen people coming into the country who at the time looked perhaps rather difficult to absorb into our Canadian way of life. I am not so alarmed about the ethnic balance as is my hon. friend from Kamloops. In my lifetime I have seen in western Canada people who came into this country from eastern, central, and southern Europe, and I have worked among them and have come to know them very well. I must say that sometimes these people were exploited by those who were already here. But I have had the pleasure over the last number of years of seeing the children of these immigrants-depressed peasants, very often, from those parts of Europe to which I have referred-play a very important part in the life of our country.
Indeed, just over a week ago I had the privilege of being able to accept an invitation to witness the opening of a large Roman Catholic church in my constituency, and I was very happy indeed to meet the new
6794	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration bishop of Saskatoon. Many of the immigrants who came from eastern Europe gave all their children an opportunity to integrate themselves into the life of this country, and among them is the new bishop of Saskatoon who, I am certain, will play a very worthy and important part in the life of the province to which his parents came.
It made me feel a little bit older than I am, because he was born near the town when I was principal at Sedley, Saskatchewan. It made me feel that, after all, life was passing along. I think I had some of his family at school in those days. I just mention that matter in passing, because, as I say, I am not so much worried about the ethnic origin of people who are coming to this country. Of course, I want to see the people who come here become imbued with our spirit of democracy, to understand our parliamentary and other democratic institutions, and to become good citizens of Canada. That I have seen them do. If we have a carefully planned system of immigration I believe that we shall meet with the success that we have met in the past. We have an excellent school system in our various provinces. The teachers in the schools throughout the years have done a great deal indeed to build up the kind of citizenship of which I think we can all be proud, not only in western Canada but all over this country.
What I was going to say is this. I think every care should be exercised to see that immigrants, when they plan to come to this country, are given a correct impression of what they will find when they reach here.
I am also going to say, from my own personal experience, that I was fortunate, as I have already said, about the Alberta people among whom I landed 45 years ago. But I recall an immigration lecture which I heard before leaving Devonshire.
I had bought my ticket to Edmonton, Alberta, in January 1910. Shortly afterwards an immigration agent from the government or from the railways-I forget which it was-visited the little town where I was born and where I was at that time. I went to the lecture and I saw some beautiful pictures of Canada. Among them was a picture of the city to which I was going, namely the city of Edmonton. Then the next picture that was thrown on the screen was that of rather nice-looking girls picking peaches in an orchard. The placing together of those two pictures led me to think that when I got to Edmonton I would find peach orchards. As a matter of fact, I remember driving from Strathcona, as it was then-it is south Edmonton now-into north Edmonton as it is today, because there was no C.P.R. station there then; and crossing the river


valley by bus I saw some cottages with a few little trees that I understood afterwards were poplar trees. I turned to a gentleman whom I had met on the train and had been talking to, and I said, "I suppose those are peach trees". That was the effect of the placing on the screen of two pictures in close proximity.


An hon. Member:: What about the girls?


Major James William Coldwell: I was already engaged to be married at the time so perhaps I was not as interested in the girls; but they were very nice-looking girls, I remember. That brings me to this point. What was being done in those days is being done now.
I have here a clipping from a London evening paper-it is from an issue in February of this year-containing a report of a lecture in the civic hall at Croydon early in February. We are told that there was an audience of 800. The article says this:
Canada was in need of many types of workers, but the main shortage was in artisans, farmers, qualified nurses, shorthand typists and domestic helpers, said Mr. Don Brown,-
I do not know who Mr. Don Brown is. I am quite sure he is not our colleague from Essex West.
-a Canadian government official, at an emigration lecture, organized by Messrs. Thomas Cook & Son, and held at the civic hall, Croydon, on Monday.
The heading of this article is, "What Canada Offers her Immigrants: Work for All, Low Cost of Living, Lower Taxes".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Government policy!


Major James William Coldwell: Then the article goes on to state:
It was impossible to guarantee jobs or living accommodation before immigrants arrived, as much depended on the qualifications, experience and personality of the individual, but in a land as vast as Canada it was not hard to find work.
I have not much quarrel with that statement.


Walter Edward Harris: I would not think you would.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, oh!


Major James William Coldwell: The article continues:
"Income tax is about a third of what you would pay in England."


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, oh!


Major James William Coldwell: I venture to think that if any of those 800 people came to Canada as a result of that lecture, they would be disillusioned and disappointed, would write letters back to this London evening paper and would tell them how they had been tricked into believing that conditions were quite different from what they actually are in this country. That kind of thing hurts immigration rather than aids it. The article went on to talk about education for the children. It states:
Education was under the control of the various provinces, but it was free up to the university standard and, even then, only a nominal fee was charged.
In most provinces today high school education requires some fee. I would not call the university fees today nominal fees. Nor would I agree with this statement:
Many students paid for their own college education by working during the summer holidays.
They can help themselves through college or university during their summer holidays, but with university fees what they are today and the cost of board and room what it is today, a statement of that description is also deceptive.
Of course the British immigrant is now becoming extremely conscious of the fact that we have no national health plan in this country, and that our social security system is incomplete and behind their own. Consequently Mr. Brown had this to say:
There was no national health scheme as such, but there were many comparable services, and a form of family allowance which was payable for each child, including the first.
A lecture of that description is, I think, deceptive and wholly wrong and should be stopped by our Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
As if to confirm all this, I have in my hand a letter received sometime ago from a gentleman who lived in Canada for a long time. He reminds me that I met him on two or three occasions in the city of Toronto. I am not going to read his letter,
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration but I am going to say that he tells me that he had lived in Canada for 40 years and that he is a 100 per cent imperial pensioner. He says he went to England to live-he is not an Englishman; he is a Scandinavian- because he could not exist in Canada on an imperial pension. That gives the opposite side of the story that the cost of living is less in Canada than it is in the United Kingdom. Then he goes on to tell me that he was in a shipping office near the place from which the letter was written, namely Thirsk, Yorkshire, in England, an agency for the Canadian Pacific Railway, where a young man was giving a lecture on Canada and trying to persuade people to emigrate to this country. This man goes on to say:
... it sounded so lovely, lots of houses, lots of jobs at $60 a week, no worries of any kind, pictures of Canadian farms, typical farms, with huge houses and lots of cows around them, no trouble to get one of these anywhere you like, just buy a ticket on the C.P.R. . . .
He goes on to say:
Now I know Canada needs population, but to drag people from the farm here with a lot of false promises is not fair, as England's biggest problem is food and they are desperate for farm workers here. I met a family here a day or so ago that went out to Canada three months ago and had to live all over the place and nobody wanted mother because she had done wrong and had a baby. What about that?
I will be glad to show the minister the letter afterwards. Of course I saw, as I have no doubt the minister did, the story in the Journal of June 23 of the 20-year-old German immigrant who said that he had been lured to Canada by promises of immigration officials in Germany of "a job for every man within 48 hours". I am drawing these cases to the attention of the minister so that greater care may be exercised. As one who was an immigrant to this country many years ago, I know perfectly well that there is no need to present a false picture, that if a person coming here is told the truth about this country, if he is willing to fit into the community and do what he can for himself and the community in which he lives in Canada, he will be perfectly all right. I think there is no country in the world which offers greater opportunities to young men or young women than does Canada. What I am saying to the minister is that we have got to be careful that we do not give an entirely false picture and cause disillusionment and bitter disappointment.
I also want to say something about the sponsoring of immigrants. I believe that Canada recognizes certain organizations as sponsoring organizations, shall I call them.
679S	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration We have the Lutheran or so-called confessional groups in Germany, certain Roman Catholic organizations and other organizations. Yesterday I met in this city a German lady who is here to attend the international conference of social workers or the conference of international social workers-I forget which is correct-in Toronto in the next few days. She was telling me about the international labour assistance organization which has its headquarters in Brussels. It is of course a non-communist organization and is associated with the international federation of trade unions, which of course is an anti-communist international organization. Incidentally, our two labour congresses are both members of the international federation of trade unions, and I believe that through the international trade union organization they make some contribution towards the international labour assistance organization. This organization not only assists in the immigration of displaced persons. This lady told me that she knew the organization had some 500 suitable immigrants who wanted to come to Canada.
The organization is recognized by the economic and social council of the United Nations. In addition to assisting able-bodied immigrants to emigrate to other countries, it is also active in looking after some of those who are unable to look after themselves, the aged and the sick. I think the immigration branch might look into this organization through our embassies and other channels with a view to making use of it and giving it recognition, because that is important. These organizations usually receive financial support from semi-private or private sources like the Ford foundation, and recognition by Canada would be very helpful in obtaining assistance from such sources. I ask the minister to look into the matter and see if something can be done to accord some recognition to a worth-while organization of this description.
The hon. member for Kamloops mentioned discrimination. I feel that there has been discrimination in the department of immigration. I quite agree with all that he had to say about our Chinese immigrants. I know many worthy Chinese who are now citizens of Canada who have had great difficulty in obtaining the admission of their children to this country. I support the hon. member for Kamloops in the plea he has made that the method of determining parentage should be reviewed by the department and that sworn statements might be given more credence than has been the case in the past.
TMr. Coldwell.]

But I do not think that discrimination stops there. I can think of some of our commonwealth associates, people from the West Indies, for example, where some of the oldest colonies of Britain are situated, people who have been associated with us in bonds of citizenship for centuries. If these people from the West Indies are coloured or even slightly coloured they have a very difficult task in trying to get into our country and settle here. Even if they are students they have difficulties in remaining here beyond the time they have set as being required for them to obtain their degree or education.
Of course the same applies to the East Indians. I do not know how long our Indian fellow associates in the British commonwealth are going to tolerate discrimination against people of East Indian origin. In other respects also I think there has been discrimination. I have heard from time to time about discrimination even in the choice of people from Europe.
At the end of the war we had departmental officials overseas who thought that every person who was more or less socialistic or associated with a socialistic organization was a communist. Yet among the bitterest opponents of modern communism are those to be found in the socialist parties of Europe. Before we send officials over there to screen people we should be very careful to see that they are told exactly what the position is in that respect.
I have said something about immigration. I want to make it perfectly clear first of all that I think the minister's policy of having a cut-off date so that immigrants will not arrive here in the depth of winter or in autumn when winter is approaching and be faced with hardships is a good policy. I support that. I think that immigration should be properly planned. We should try to bring in immigrants and place them where they can be placed without displacing Canadian workers. If displacement of Canadian workers is allowed, I think it will cause a great deal of opposition to immigration as such. This country requires more population and the opportunities that are here for great expansion should be taken advantage of under a careful plan.
There is one other group I should like to mention in connection with immigration. I believe our department might perhaps give a little more attention to trying to bring in orphans for adoption. I know of people in this country who are sending over $15 each month to Europe to maintain a war orphan in Europe. I believe that end would be much better served if we could bring a child into this country, and place that child in a good

Canadian home, because there are homes that are seeking children for adoption. The child could be brought up in a Canadian home, in a Canadian environment and then would become a first class citizen of our country. I mention the immigration of orphans as worthy of consideration.
I do not want to speak too long, but I want to say one other thing in connection with the Indian department. I was very happy last night to hear about the situation at Sarnia. I believe that the minister, in encouraging the co-education, if you like, of Indian and Canadian children

Indians are of course Canadians but I mean children of Indian origin and children of Anglo-Saxon, French and other origins-is doing a good thing. I believe that is something that should be encouraged everywhere. I have never been satisfied with the residential school as the solution to our Indian problem; I have never been satisfied that was a wise thing. I know it is not always possible, but I think it would be better to have these Indian children mixing, in so far as possible, with white children. They may be in separate schools or public schools, but let the two groups attend the same school. I am convinced if that is done we shall find the Indian child has just the same kind of ability as the average white child. I do not believe there is any difference in individual aptitudes or intelligence because of the colour of the skin.
I am quite sure that in the past we have not given the Indian child the opportunity that child should have had to live a full and decent life. I know we are not touching on health, but it is satisfactory to know that the health of the Indian population is being improved by the provinces and the dominion in co-operation with one another. This has resulted in an increase in the Indian population. I believe that is all to the good. After all, the Indians are the original occupants of this country and have a culture of their own. I have never agreed with the view that was expressed in some quarters half a century ago that time would settle the Indian problem because the Indians would become extinct. I am happy to know that is not happening. Given the opportunities for education, I believe that the Indian boy and girl can achieve an educational standing and enter useful fields of endeavour, not only on the farm and in industry, but in some of the higher branches of learning. I am, therefore, very happy to know that the minister is encouraging this type of association and co-education.
I know that the house is hoping to prorogue today, so I propose to take up no more time with this department. I have tried to say
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration all I want to say at the moment. I believe we are all interested in doing the best to promote the kind of immigration we believe will build up the kind of Canada that we hope will develop in the future.


Mr. Drew:: May I say that I do not intend to make a comprehensive review of the subject, in view of the extremely able analysis of it that has been presented by the hon. member for Kamloops on behalf of our party. May I say that I agree substantially with almost everything that has been said by the leader of the C.C.F. party. I would not wish to be misunderstood, but I could not help noticing his statement that the socialist parties are the most ardent antagonists of communism. May I say, without any reservation, that my regard for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is such that I can support from my own knowledge any statement as to his very strong views on that, but I hesitate to let his statement go unchallenged.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps I should put it the other way around, that the socialist parties of Europe are the most hated by the communist party.


George Alexander Drew: That, of course, opens the door to other approaches, and I do not wish to extend the argument through a historical review. However, I would not like to forget that Mr. Nenni of the socialist party in Italy is not offering a very good example of opposition to the communist party.


Major James William Coldwell: There are black sheep in every group.


George Alexander Drew: We all have them, but I do want to make it clear in raising that question that my personal regard for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is such that I would not in any way associate the comments I am making about any party elsewhere with my own belief as to his own firm stand on this subject.
I do wish also to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Peace River, who stood aside to permit me to speak because I have an appointment at 12.30. May I just interpolate, Mr. Chairman, another aside that has not to do with immigration. In view of the press report which I hear appeared this morning, I hope that this will not be taken as evidence of forming some alliance between the Conservative and Social Credit parties. I might say that the other comments to that effect are just as ridiculous as any suggestion of this kind would be. My statements in regard to our position as a Conservative party are clearly on record in that respect. With very high regard for the individuals who belong to the other party, I have

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I want to deal next with something that should have been cleaner up long ago. On March 15, 1952, an article was written by a highly qualified writer, Mr. Blair Fraser, in Maclean's magazine under the challenging title "How racketeers sold entry into Canada". Unless the facts are challenged, and they have not been satisfactorily challenged by the government, that article disclosed one of the most barefaced and heartless rackets in the history of this country. On a number of occasions questions have been asked in regard to this subject and as to what is being done. For instance, on December 9, 1952, I asked a question which had succeeded several earlier questions. I asked the following question on that day, as reported at pages 458 and 459 of Hansard:
I should like to ask a question of the minister of immigration. Is the minister in a position to report to the house what steps have been taken in connection with the disclosure of fraudulent conduct which was discussed in the house last session, and in respect of which we were informed inquiries were being conducted, and that action would be taken?
The present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who was the minister then, replied:
Yes. The charges against five or six people are now being prepared, in consultation with the Department of Justice. I think-although this is my own opinion-that they will likely be laid in the course of the next month, at the outside.
Whatever the department and the government have done about this matter following that, parliament has not heard about it. This is something that is not merely a case of prosecution of a few men. This discloses a wide-open, barefaced racket under which people were taking money to bring some immigrants here. Unhappily it would appear they were more successful in getting some of them here than those who have been following the normal methods have been. The fact is the success they have had in bringing people here only encourages racketeering of that kind. When they find the difficulties in following the normal methods they perhaps are encouraged to follow abnormal methods, and they may be encouraged to believe that that is part of the process of bringing people to this country. Not only do we want a clean record, in the opinion of countries from which we expect immigrants at this time, but we must make sure that any more rackets of this kind are disclosed in the utmost detail, and leave no uncertainty that this is being dealt with with justice, with even-handed consideration and in the firmest possible way, wherever irregularities are disclosed.

The minister should bring this committee fully up to date in regard to this matter and let us know exactly what has taken place; not merely to prosecute if there have been grounds for prosecution, but to clean out the condition that made it possible for that racket to develop in the first place in different countries in Europe.
I want to deal with something that I regard as extremely serious. It has been mentioned here before. I just want to mention the tale of two men because they tell such a differenl story. I want to read first from a Canadian Press dispatch of April 14 of this year:
Hon. Walter Harris, immigration minister, has declined to comment on a departmental decision ordering the deportation to France of Mr. and Mrs, Henri Zorin of Quebec city. The Zorins were ordered deported after Mr. Zorin was convicted on a charge of assault and paid a $50 fine. Undei immigration regulations immigrants convicted oi crimes are deported automatically.
The assault charge arose in connection with Mr, Zorin's defence of his wife after she was assaulted in Quebec city. Mr. Zorin pleaded ignorance of Canadian laws and said he would have appealed the sentence if he had known that deportation would be automatic.
That man, defending his wife from assault, convicted formally in respect of that sentence, was deported. Let me refer to another very unusual case where a man is still enjoying the full advantages of living in Canada. 1 am going to refer again and in greater detail than I have before to a case that I think should cause concern to all Canadians, and above all it should cause concern to those people in responsible positions in our labour organizations who have done so much to establish respect for the standards of organized labour in Canada. I think we have every reason to be proud of the respect for lav/ and order and the demands for respect for law and order which have been expressed by the great leaders of our recognized labour organizations in this country. It is for the reason that we want the very highest recognition of what has been done by men in positions of responsibility in the labour organizations of this country that I draw attention to this unusual case once again, because it is far from satisfactory that a man with the record he has should have been given the extraordinarily preferred treatment which contrasts so remarkably with that extended to Mr. Zorin who was deported-because a conviction automatically carries with it deportation.
I refer again to the case of a man named Harold Banks. This is a subject that involves not only the Department of Citizenship and Immigration but the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour as well. This man came to Canada some years ago for the specific purpose of carrying out activities oi

a particular kind in the way of labour organization. I think very real questions might be raised in regard to permitting him to come in under any circumstances if his record in the United States was actually known. I am unable to say whether his record was known at the time he came in. It has been known since then, however. I think it is important to realize that, as contrasted with Mr. Zorin, this man, having come in specifically for the purpose of organizing in Canada under a temporary permit, was admitted for permanent residence in Canada on May 8, 1952, after he had already been convicted under the Customs Act here in Canada the month before.
Surely if conviction in one case means deportation, conviction in another case should at least give rise to some inquiry as to the man's background before he is given permission to remain as a permanent resident. Therefore, I think it is necessary now to withdraw any veil of secrecy in regard to the record of this man, who has been in the courts of this country on more than one occasion since he came here.
I said before and I repeat that he demonstrated his acceptance of the privilege of being in Canada by being in possession of
36.000	smuggled cigarettes, in April 1952, and being convicted on a charge with respect to those cigarettes that month and fined $200. That was four times more than Mr. Zorin was fined. In addition to that, his automobile was seized, but was subsequently released because they were unable to prove that he had actually been the smuggler. But he was convicted of being in possession of
36.000	smuggled cigarettes the month before he was given permission to become a permanent resident in Canada.
This man had been convicted on different occasions in the United States. One of those convictions in 1930 carried with it a sentence of fourteen years in San Quentin prison. That, after all, is not something that should be disregarded, and it was known to the department before this man went to Geneva this year with the permission and approval of the Minister of Labour. His appointment was paid for from the general fund of the ILO to which Canada is a contributor, and in that way Canadian funds were used, through the formal approval of the government, to send this man as a Canadian representative at this gathering on this occasion dealing with a specific branch of labour organization activities.
26,	1954	6801
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
That was not his first conviction in the United States. In a form of what we might call release, he received a rehabilitation certificate in March 1934 under which, as a result of an act of the governor of the state, he received what is called a certificate of pardon. That does not mean pardon in the sense of absolving an individual from the crime. It merely means that this rehabilitation certificate, in other words a declaration of good conduct by special order of the governor, was given this man, and he was released. But on December 5, 1947, at Richmond, California, he was charged as an ex-convict with being in possession of firearms. The formal charge in regard to firearms was dismissed and on a reduced charge of disturbing the peace he was convicted and fined $20 or ten days. This record was known to the government this year at the time this man went to Geneva and before he left. It was known to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour as well as to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is an old rule, which should be firmly respected, that no man is guilty unless proved guilty and there must always be a presumption of innocence. But when you see facts such as this, and when you learn that this man came to Canada and was not only convicted under the Customs Act but also twice charged and acquitted here, one begins to inquire, and surely the pattern of charges should at least be a warning to the government. One cannot disregard the fact that this man was charged on June 28, 1942, with child stealing in the United States, though there is no evidence of conviction in that case. Later he was charged with murder and acquitted.
Now, let me emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that he was convicted on other charges. Surely there is some pattern here; and, in view of that, some concern must be felt when a man shows such a regular habit of getting into the courts under serious charges of this kind, no matter whether acquittals follow or not, and particularly when there are convictions for other crimes.
These factors were before this government, and these facts were known to this government for some time. Mr. Zorin defends his wife, is convicted of assault, and is deported to France. Mr. Banks carries on these activities and receives government acceptance of his nomination. Do not let the government say that the responsibility in this case was the responsibility of the highly respected members of one of our largest labour organizations. After all, they were
6802	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration not in possesion of these facts; they did not have this record which the government had; and they did not know his background. This man was the head of a union which was dealing with a type of organization that was directly related to the conference which was taking place in Geneva, and it might not be unnatural that his name would occur to them for nomination.
But it was the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, and certainly the responsibility of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to consider the seriousness of this, because this question was raised in this house on several occasions before that man left. Why the difference between those two cases?
I think there is another point that should be considered, and this is something that should be of interest to organized labour in this country. While we certainly would not wish to keep out of Canada anyone who is desirous of coming to Canada, whose record is clean, and who is likely to become a good citizen, nevertheless I think that most of us might well like to feel that those who are in positions of great responsibility are men who are likely to become good Canadians.
Now, let us see what happens. This man is in the fortunate position of automatically drawing $500,000 a year through the dues paid to him. Nearly $300,000 of that amount comes from four main inland steamship companies, and the remainder from other companies with which he is associated.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no evidence that he accounts for any of this. I should think the Minister of Labour would be extremely interested in a situation of that kind. I should think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would be extremely interested, and I should think also that the Minister of Justice would be greatly interested in the methods adopted in other departments to make sure that people coming into this country are likely to be law-abiding citizens. On the record, this man is most unlikely to be a good Canadian at any time. On the record, this man has not demonstrated that he is desirous of accepting our laws. He has already broken our laws on the basis of an established court conviction.
I say with deep sincerity-and, after all, out of long experience in a position of administrative responsibility-that I know how great undoubtedly is the desire of the heads of our unions in this country to maintain law and order and to make sure that every great labour organization is a part of the Canadian society in the very highest sense


of that word. For that reason I would point out that we are still waiting to hear one word about the board of inquiry we were told would be set up with regard to this particular man.
I would have thought that the minister would have acted the very next morning, the moment these facts were brought to his attention, and that he would not have waited until they were brought out here in the house. If anything resulted from that inquiry, we do net know about it. We lack information not because a number of questions have not been asked; it is because we have not been taken into the confidence of the minister.
Mr. Chairman, the department of immigration is the department through which future citizens of Canada are brought into this country. I should like to know the reason for the difference in the treatment of the two men. Why was Mr. Zorin sent so promptly back to France? Why does Mr. Banks remain? Mr. Zorin's only offence, so far as we know, was that he defended the honour of his wife. Mr. Banks' record is before us for all to see. Even if there were not a single conviction, the regularity with which he finds his way through the doorways of the courts should in itself have proved to be some warning. No matter how many acquittals there may be, the extraordinary facility with which he gets involved in serious charges might in itself have led to some inquiry. There has been standing against him a conviction sufficiently important to call for a sentence of fourteen years in San Quentin penitentiary, of which number he served only four. Those are things which relate to the way in which we are going to bring people to Canada.
We have still unanswered those clear and specific charges that appeared in Maclean's magazine. We have unanswered questions that have been asked over and over again with regard to different people that are here. I could repeat several examples in addition to the Zorin case. I could name men whose service in the cause of freedom entitled them to consideration and respect but who have been harassed by the department while Mr. Banks has been living the life of Riley with the assistance of the government.
Mr. Chairman, this subject is too serious, even at this last day of the session, to be left wide open. If it is not possible for this subject to be fully dealt with, I submit that the unanswered disclosures call for one thing. Although the Prime Minister is not here, I press my request. May I say that I do not raise that point in any way as even implying criticism of the Prime Minister, because I know of the heavy responsibilities he accepts;

I know that right now he is preparing for an extremely important conference next week. But through the channels of Hansard and all the ministers who are here, I press with the utmost earnestness my request that a royal commission be appointed to inquire into the administration of the department of immigration so that we may know what lies behind these unanswered questions that are before us.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to lead off for our group in the discussion of this extremely important matter of immigration, but because of the illness of the gentleman who was to lead off for us I find it necessary to pinch-hit for him. I do so because I feel that this whole matter of immigration is of such great importance to Canada that there should be an expression from all groups in the House of Commons, either by way of criticism or commendation or caution to the minister and the officials of his department.
Immigration is of tremendous importance to a country like Canada. We find ourselves with vast expanses of a country which is sparsely populated. In a world of unrest and confusion, it is hardly likely that the people of overpopulated countries-people who could be classed as underprivileged people -would remain satisfied for long to look across the ocean and to see Canada carrying on in these vast domains with a population of 15 million people. That they would be satisfied is something that one just could not expect. There are many people in various countries who would be anxious to come to a country like Canada and to have an opportunity to carve out for themselves a home and to build up for themselves a decent standard of living. It is therefore true that one of our great problems today is to increase our population, and to do so in a way that will benefit the country as a whole and will make out of Canada the country that we want it to be. It is because I realize the importance of the matter that I decided I should say something about immigration.
In general I find myself in support of the minister's policy. It is a policy which could be described as one of selective immigration. Before I launch into a discussion of some of the matters that are related to selective immigration, may I just say a word about the minister himself. I feel that the minister is doing a good job. I have a high regard for him and for the attitude that he takes towards his work. He takes his work seriously and I know that he takes a pride in what he thinks is a good job. He has always given most careful attention to anything that I have brought before him, and I think I can say the same for every employee in his
26, 1954	6803
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration department. He not only takes a deep pride in what he thinks is a good job, but I believe that he goes out of his way to find out wherein his own feelings and policies may be at fault and that he tries to correct them. I wanted to say those things because I believe them to be true. They express my genuine feeling. I wanted to pass on that word of commendation to the minister because I know that in his efforts he will have to take a good many boots in the place that is built into men to be booted.
In our efforts to increase our population, I think we must continue to use care and good judgment. In our screening of prospective immigrants I think we should ever bear in mind that we want our Canadian population to be a choice people. That does not mean to say, by any means, that we are prejudiced against any people, no matter where they may live on the face of the earth. However, I believe that in Canada we have had a choice people. My judgment is that there is not on the face of the earth a people who can be said to be more choice than the Canadian population. I am taking it by and large from one end of the country to the other. Let us keep it so. We have had a high name. We have had a fine reputation through the whole world. Let us keep that reputation. We can keep it if we conduct our immigration policy with a single eye to continuing to build a choice Canadian population.
The people who love British ideals of freedom, justice and enterprise should, it seems to me, be the first considered for permanent entry into Canada. It is altogether too difficult in days like these to inculcate these principles into people who have not known them and who have not been educated in these ideas. There are too many areas on the face of the earth where people have not learned to appreciate British ideals of justice, freedom and enterprise. I think that in our screening we have got to be careful, at least until such time as our population has grown sufficiently by bringing in the choicest people. Then we may be able to relax a bit and allow some others to come when the great weight of opinion in the country will be such that newcomers can be easily taught who are unaware of our background and our ideals. I think, as I said, that we have got to be exceedingly careful at least for the time being. People who will come to love Canada and to make this country their home, with all that that implies, should receive the nod first.
I do not see any good sense in bringing prospective citizens into our country about whom there would be some doubt as to their ability to come to love the country. While
6804	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I am saying that, may I add that it is becoming increasingly difficult, under the barrage of propaganda that covers the entire earth, for people to concentrate their love upon country. Some call that nationalism, and they criticize this inculcation of love of country because they say it becomes narrow nationalism. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will take my chances with them before I will with these psychoneurotics who have no capacity to love anything and who call themselves citizens of the world.
We want the kind of people in the country who will come to love Canada. It is the only way we can build up that real patriotism, that real feeling of affection that will make them struggle for the country instead of against it. There are altogether too many who are capable of loving and living a lie. I have often thought of an expression which is not very wholesome in its sound, but it certainly carries the right connotation. Even a louse will cling to the flesh on which it feeds. I think we ought to think of that in connection with our immigration policy. We need in our country people who are ready to pioneer, who are ready to work and to put up with some hardships in order to win for themselves a measure of material security, people who at the same time will be prepared to take their responsibilities of citizenship.
In bringing that kind of people to our country I think it is important for us to give them every help and every encouragement that we can so that they can be prepared to take their responsibilities of citizenship. They have got to understand, and if they are to understand then we have got to be prepared to make the wisest use of their own languages.
Something has been said here today about the ethnic press. I support what the Leader of the Opposition said in that regard. I believe the ethnic press offers one of the finest ways by which we can get over to these newcomers to Canada in their own language, the language they understand and appreciate, what our ideals consist of, what we expect of them and how they can best integrate themselves into the Canadian way of life and protect themselves against the propaganda that all too often besets them immediately they enter the country.
I have been keenly interested in the possibilities of the use of the ethnic press to help our immigrants to this country. After talking with the editors of such papers, I have often wondered why it is that the foreign language press is neglected. I do not mean by not giving them moral support. That is not what I am trying to get over. I think that we should be going out of our


way to give encouragement to the loyal foreign language press of this country; but, as I say, it is not merely a question of moral encouragement. There is another thing. According to Allan Boyd, who seems to be something of an authority on the foreign language press, the communist foreign language press in Canada is well organized, and the interesting thing is that it is well supported. How? Well, support means finance to keep the paper going, to make it possible to have sufficient employees of the kind required to do a job.
How is it that they can get advertising? They get it and they get plenty of it, but the loyal foreign language press cannot. It does seem to me that there are ways by which we can ensure these foreign language newspapers that are loyal the means by which they can continue to publish their efforts. Why would it not be possible for the federal and provincial governments to take advertising in these newspapers? The Post Office Department has to advertise. The Department of National Defence has to do a lot of advertising. The Department of Trade and Commerce has to do a great deal of advertising. Even the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has to do a lot of advertising.
I have heard such hon. members as the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace criticize expenditures for advertising. Nevertheless I feel that the government, if it is to make the wisest use of this great educational factor, should go out of the way to take advertising in the loyal foreign language press of Canada. I want to quote briefly the substance of something that was published in the Financial Post on November 1, 1952, in this same connection. Speaking of the use of the ethnic press, the article has this to say:
Fighting the propaganda of the left-wing papers is Canada's democratic foreign language press. Editorially, all of the 139 free papers are for democracy and the Canadian way of life, though their effectiveness is sometimes hampered by the multitude of national factions and the opposing ideas they represent.
The article goes on to point out that the great weakness of the loyal foreign language press is lack of facilities, which is quite unlike the Kremlin-supported foreign language press in Canada. It goes on to say that the subversive effect of the Kremlin-supported papers is beyond our comprehension, and it must be remembered that these Kremlin-supported papers get into the hands of our immigrants immediately they arrive in this country. The papers are in their language and these people do not know and have no way of knowing. I say the best way to make-

it known to them is to use, by every means possible, the loyal foreign language press. The Financial Post article goes on to say:
Set against these inadequate tools-
Of the loyal press.
-is the editor's important responsibility to link the new world way of life with former traditions and to introduce Canada to his readers. Many of the editors-
Speaking of the loyal press.
-having experienced Soviet oppression have a dynamic yardstick with which to measure the value of Canadian freedom and are eager to combat subversive elements among their peoples. They actually make up one of the most active anti-communist groups in the country today. Often, because of their limited, personal resources, it's an unequal battle.
Now, let us see that it is made a more equal battle. I support by every vehemence at my command the appeal made in this connection by the Leader of the Opposition.
There is another thing I believe we ought to keep in mind as we contemplate the policies we shall follow with respect to screening and measuring the type of prospective immigrants. I believe that in making our selection we should be sure that the selectees have a proper background, both of tradition and of experience, so as to be better able to find and properly fill positions that will yield them a satisfactory living in this country. In this connection, I think we should be exceedingly careful to ensure that our prospective immigrants know exactly the conditions to which they are coming in Canada. Much has been said about that already, and I shall not repeat it. Let us not be guilty of continuing to allow beautiful pictures to be presented to these prospective immigrants, pictures that prove not to be in keeping with the facts when they arrive here. Let us give them the truth, and see that they get the truth. Furthermore, let us be sure that when they do come they are the type of people who can fit into the jobs that are here for them.
I am not one of those who worry too much about the matter of employment. I know a lot has been said by various groups and labour unions who think that immigration is too rapid. We have to use some caution, of course, but I believe that if we are reasonably cautious about the speed of the application of our immigration plans we can assure every single one of these people who come a decent job. I believe, with the Globe and Mail, as expressed in their editorial of December 15, 1953, that every immigrant who comes into the country, who is a capable and well selected immigrant, makes jobs for
26, 1954	6805
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration people. I believe that is a fact. I heard a delightful talk by the minister of immigration down at the Chateau Laurier not so long ago on the occasion of the annual scout dinner.
I recall a lot of the things he said, and when this Globe and Mail editorial was drawn to my attention, I discovered that one of the employees of the department of immigration, speaking at Niagara Falls last autumn, had said almost essentially the things the minister said down at that dinner. I just wanted to mention one or two of the things that were pointed out in this editorial, which is headed, "One in Five". It starts out this way:
Sometime early in the new year, Canada will receive its millionth post-war immigrant. This newspaper would sooner it were the two millionth or three millionth, because it firmly believes that Canada's biggest problem-and the root of nearly all the other problems-is its lack of population.
I want to point out to the Globe and Mail that it is just as well not to get into too big a hurry. I think we ought to take a reasonable speed and keep it. Then, the editor goes on:
This is not a desirable state of affairs. Nor, we believe, is it necessary. Given proper leadership at the top, the Canadian people would accept large-scale immigration as a basic principle of national policy.
I emphasize that. Farther down the editorial continues:
. . . Mr. John D. Sharp, the department's regional liaison officer at Niagara Falls, last week showed that city's junior chamber of commerce how immigrants make jobs for established Canadians. He pointed out that about 38 per cent of post-war immigrants have bought cars;-
I remember the minister mentioned that down at the Chateau Laurier.
-and about 40 per cent own their own homes. Something more than 40 per cent have household appliances, such as refrigerators, and 52 per cent are living in single-family houses with everything that implies in the way of domestic purchases.
I point out, Mr. Chairman, those are impressive figures, and they indicate clearly that those people who are being brought to this country are successfully integrating themselves into Canadian life. They are not putting other people out of work because every time they buy an automobile or an electrical appliance or a home, they are giving work to some Canadian people who are already established here. I do not, therefore, fear too much any large scale immigration, so long as it is brought about under careful screening arrangements and a carefully selective policy.
Something has been said about discrimination, and the Chinese have been mentioned. I have had quite a lot of experience in this matter, and I want to preface what I have
6806	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to say about it with this remark. Taking it by and large, the Chinese people of this country are good citizens. I have found nearly all whom I have met good Canadian citizens. They are ready to take their responsibilities. I know the problem the minister is facing, but I do believe that on some occasions too little attention has been paid to the sworn statements purporting to establish relationships between prospective Canadian immigrants and Canadian citizens who have been in the country for many years.
I know something of the problems involved, but I keep coming back to the pertinent fact that in these things we are dealing with human beings who have just as poignant feelings, deep and tender emotions, as we have even though their skins may be a different colour. There are many borderline cases, difficult to handle. I know it is difficult, under present circumstances, to establish true relationships between the applicant for entry into Canada and Canadian citizens already here, but they are not so many in number. I believe because they are not so numerous we might perhaps relax a little bit in connection with some of these cases and allow the children to come in.
I know of cases, for example, where the wives of Canadian citizens remained in the old country, and when the communist revolution took place they went through untold suffering. Actually, some of them did adopt the children of brothers and sisters who were killed in the communist coup. In all respects it would seem to me that these children belong to the mother who took them, cared for them, and adopted them. It does seem to me that in the few cases that could be clearly established, even though those children may not be under the age limit, we eould relax the act. I believe it would be wise to strain a point and let them come in with the mother and father and keep together. I believe they would make good Canadian citizens. As I say, they are so few in number, it would not complicate our problem here very much, if at all. Even though in their great care to fulfil the letter of the law I feel the departmental officials, in some cases, have been too discriminatory, nevertheless I have always found the immigration officials ready and willing to re-examine the facts. I have discovered that, and I want to pay that tribute to them. They have always been ready and willing to re-examine facts and, it seems to me, they have done a good job.
[Mr. Low.l

I do not want to take too much time because I realize we want to get to the end of this session. However, I would have liked time to refer to the Indian problem at some greater length, because I believe there is a real problem, and I would say only this to the minister, that that problem is in connection with band autonomy. I am sure he realizes that problem.
Some things have been said about granting Indian bands full autonomy, to determine who should be the members of bands and who should not. This matter is full of repercussions and dangers, and just how to handle the situation is not clear to me. I am afraid I cannot advise the minister on that point. I am sure however that it is something that will engage his attention because, now that bands are coming into some wealth-oil and other mineral wealth -it seems to me there is the inclination all too frequently that, in their exercise of autonomy, bands will try to limit their numbers unreasonably so as to make it possible for each member of a band to have more wealth.
That is a problem that will have to be faced. As I have said, 1 have not been able to determine just how it will be done. I would however ask that the minister give it his consideration, because it is a real problem.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Kamloops and others who have spoken, I regret that these important estimates have come so late in the session. It is a question of too little and too late- too little time to discuss them and too late to take advantage of that time.
I must say, in line with what some others have said, I am an immigrant. My parents were farming people in England, who came to this country and nearly froze to death on the prairies. Then we saw some magnificent advertising about British Columbia, the Kootenay country-apple trees in bloom halfway up the mountain. And when we got there, there were no trees in bloom, in fact no apple trees. I remember my father purchasing some settlers' effects in Winnipeg, and there was included in those effects 200 feet of inch-and-a-half rope to pull the trees down. Well, we spent a lot of our money, but fortunately for us, some of our relatives died in England, and we survived that rather difficult period.
I do think the present unemployment situation and the criticism from various places indicate certain weaknesses in the government's immigration policy. Let me say before proceeding further that I realize fully the difficulties of the minister's task.

People have a habit of rising in the house and asking for a vigorous immigration policy, and then of rising again and complaining about unemployment. I realize that, and I hope that in what I shall say I shall be strictly logical. However, growing dissatisfaction seems to be indicated by the representations made by municipalities, which representations, I am sure, the minister has received. It is indicated by the growing concern of trade unions and of certain Legion branches in some areas. It is also indicated in the correspondence received by members of the House of Commons-and in this connection I shall refer to one or two items.
I have here a telegram dated May 17 from the association of Kootenay municipalities which, I have no doubt, the minister also received. This organization represents 20 municipalities, and the telegram indicates that they are very much concerned about the unemployment situation, and the fact that unemployed immigrants were causing these municipalities certain expense. This is the telegram I received:
The association of Kootenay municipalities respectfully suggest that the federal government immediately restrict that immigration which will in any way aggravate the unemployment of Canadian citizens.
And this is signed by Roger N. Chester, secretary. That is an indication that municipalities are experiencing some difficulty because of unemployed immigrants.
Then the Ottawa Journal of April 27, 1954, carried the following heading: "Sault Claims
1,000	Immigrants on Relief". The first paragraph states:
An angry city council blasted the federal government last night for an immigration policy which it said had dumped 1,000 penniless and jobless immigrants on its relief rolls.
And it goes on in a similar vein.
Then I have here an article from the Nelson Daily News of April 17, 1S54, under the heading "Employment of Destitute Immigrants by Works Projects Urged at Legion Meet". The article goes on to say that the East Kootenay Canadian Legion zone meeting discussed the plight of hundreds of immigrants who are now destitute from unemployment, and asked that the federal Department of Public Works undertake projects to relieve that condition.
I also have here an article from the Kootenay Free Press published in Trail. It is dated February 18, 1954, and carries the heading "Rain Soaks Jobless Immigrant's Hovel". It describes an immigrant living in a hovel made from lumber scantlings and cardboard.
6807
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
And here I have the article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of June 23, and to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred, bearing the heading, "Jobs for All in 48 Hours Lure to German Immigrant." The item goes on to explain that this immigrant considered that Canada was oversold to him.
I believe this does indicate some lack of planning in respect of our immigration policy, and a certain lack of realism as to what the situation may be in Canada a few months ahead.
In addition to the criticism of the over-all policy, I find considerable criticism of the policy in respect of immigrants for farm work. This was discussed when the estimates of the Department of Labour were before us. It would seem that these people are pretty well coached in Europe. Some who are unsuited for farming say that they are coming to Canada to farm. They receive assistance, and then apparently they go into industry shortly after arrival.
There is considerable opposition from trade unions to the bringing of immigrants from Europe by railroad contractors, where these immigrants would find work on the railroads, where no collective agreements exist, and where they can be employed at lower wage scales and under poorer working conditions than exist where collective agreements are in effect.
I intend to ask some questions concerning a matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. However, as it is now one o'clock, perhaps I might be permitted to resume after lunch.


Walter Edward Harris: I am in agreement with my hon. friend, but I am wondering if we could shorten the lunch hour by making it two o'clock instead of two-thirty.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed that the lunch-hour adjournment shall end at two o'clock instead of two-thirty?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at two o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In continuing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal briefly with a question that concerns the members of this group and I am sure a good many members of the house and a good many Canadians. Because there may be wives and children involved in these cases I am not going to mention names, I shall simply say, Mr. So and So.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Earlier in the session the hon, member for Winnipeg North asked certain questions in the house as follows:
1.	Are any French nationals now resident in Canada who have been convicted in the French courts of treason or of collaboration with the German occupying forces?
A. Yes.
2.	If so, how many and who are they?
A. The department knows of the following:
Five names are mentioned. I continue:
3.	How many, if any, entered the country illegally and have now been permitted to stay?
A. All the above named. Copies of the orders in council under which they were landed were tabled in the House of Commons on the 11th day of March, 1949.
4.	How many have applied for Canadian citizenship?
A. Four.
5.	How many have been granted Canadian citizenship?
A. Three.
Another set of questions was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North as follows:
1.	When and how did	enter Canada?
A. On December 1, 1946, as a non-immigrant. As the House of Commons was informed on March
2,	1949	was granted a landing under
authority of order in council P.C. 2920, dated June 29, 1948.
2. Was he, at any time, an inspector of the Waflen SS?
A. Information not available.
3.	Has he been sentenced in any French court for treason?
4.	If so, what was the sentence?
A. He was sentenced to death in absentia by a French court of justice as guilty of having had dealings with a foreign power with a view to encouraging the undertakings of that power against France.
5.	Has	been granted Canadian citizenship?
A. Yes.
In dealing with this subject I want to draw the attention of the committee to the section of the Immigration Act dealing with prohibited classes. Section 4 (1) (d) says:
persons who have been convicted of, or admit having committed, any crime involving moral turpitude.
These are the persons who are prohibited from entering Canada. Then again clause (r) reads:
(r) persons who have been found guilty of high treason or treason or of conspiring against His Majesty, or of assisting His Majesty's enemies in time of war, or of any similar offence against any of His Majesty's allies.
Section 10 of the Canadian Citizenship Act reads:
(1) the minister may, in his discretion, grant a certificate of citizenship to any person who is not a Canadian citizen and who makes application for that purpose and satisfies the court...

And so on.
Paragraph (b) reads:
(b) he has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence therein;
(d) he is of good character.
In view of the law we cannot understand how these people were permitted to stay in Canada and how they were granted Canadian citizenship. We have in our possession copies of the judgments of the French courts, which were sent to us from Paris. I am not reading the judgments, but I am going to read a couple of lines with respect to the sentences in each case.


Walter Edward Harris: Which case?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In fairness, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, I do not want to give the names. I will send the minister my slip when I am through. The part of the judgment in the first case reads as follows: . . . found guilty of anti-national actions against France, sentenced in absentia to imprisonment at hard labour for life and to national degradation for life, July 3, 1945, by the court of justice of Agen.
In the second case:
. . . sentenced to five years imprisonment and to national degradation for life by the court of justice of Toulouse for collaborationist sentiments.
In the third case:
. . . sentenced in absentia to the death penalty and forfeiture of all his property for treason, January 10, 1945, by the court of justice of Toulouse.
In the fourth case:
. . . sentenced in absentia by the court of justice of La Haute-Savoie to imprisonment at hard labour for life, national degradation for life and forfeiture of all property, February 26, 1946, for collaboration with the enemy.
In the fifth case:
. . . sentenced March 28, 1945, in absentia to death as guilty for dealings in time of war with a foreign power with a view to encourage that power against France.
Inspector Waffen S.S.
That means he was serving the German gestapo very well indeed.
These men entered Canada under false names, with false passports, and were provided with false visas. I might say that a high French government official stated they belonged to an organization who murdered the French minister, Georges Mandel, in the forest of Fontainebleau, massacred resisters, and betrayed allied parachutists who were hidden by brave Frenchmen who were shot. Some of these parachutists may have been some of our own men.
Canadian citizenship is a very valuable possession that should be granted only to persons who qualify according to the law.
When I was speaking on this question I could not help remembering the remarks of

the Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1946 when he was introducing the Canadian Citizenship Act. I recall them vividly because I always take pleasure in listening to the organ-like cadences of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On that occasion he pulled out all the stops and the pedal fortissimo. 1 want to read a portion of that speech as it appears in Hansard of April 2, 1946, at page 505. This is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was then the secretary of state, speaking:
But there is no finer club in the world so far as we are concerned than the club that I would characterize as the Canadian family. We should want, therefore, to impress upon new Canadians whom we shall welcome and want to share in our national endeavours that they are joining no mean society but a society that will give them freedom and an opportunity perhaps that they have not had in other lands, and at the same time to point out to them the nature of the obligation undertaken and tell them something of the kind of country and the kind of general political basis of the Canadian society itself.
And then again the minister on page 502 of the same volume:
For the national unity of Canada and for the future and greatness of this country it is felt to be of the utmost importance that all of us, new Canadians or old, have a consciousness of a common purpose and common interests as Canadians; that all of us be able to say with pride and say with meaning: "I am a Canadian citizen.*'
I am sure every hon. member of this house, Mr. Chairman, agrees with those sentiments. But we cannot understand how those sentiments can be given expression by a minister of this government when we find the sort of people I have mentioned being permitted to enter Canada and being granted citizenship in this country. The government of which the hon. gentleman is a member saw fit to grant citizenship to persons who have proved traitors to France, traitors to our cause, traitors to all we hold most precious and sacred, and traitors to the ideals upon which Canadian citizenship is based.
Those people now have the right to say, "I am a Canadian citizen." We in this group strongly protest this action and while I am not one of those who wish to see the death penalty imposed upon any person, X think that this government, when it discovered those persons were in Canada and had entered illegally, ought to have been told, in view of their records, to depart to more suitable places as Count de Bernonville did. There is no place in Canada, Mr. Chairman, for people who have proven themselves so untrue to all the things we stand for.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure investigations were held by the proper authorities in the immigration branch and by the R.C.M.P., but if there were, I am afraid they
26, 1954	6809
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration must have listened to the romantic tales told by those people. We think this house is entitled to an explanation of the reason why these people were given citizenship and allowed to stay in Canada. I am of the opinion that the minister was not told the facts by some of his officials before these decisions were made. We all have great respect for the minister, and while we differ with him on occasion I am quite sure he is very anxious to see that we have the right type of people coming to Canada, and obtaining citizenship.
The minister comes from a very fine Canadian family. He served with distinction in the second world war, and I am quite sure the hon. and gallant member must feel somewhat uncomfortable when he realizes that his department has made it possible for persons who were traitors to France and traitors to Christian civilization to say now, "I am a Canadian citizen."
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will make some explanation to the house of this most unseemly procedure. I could give some other cases but we have not yet received the documents. However, these are not isolated cases and they are more extensive than appears on the surface.
I am confident that our immigration service overseas is not all it is supposed to be, not only with respect to matters brought before the house this morning by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, but also with respect to the glowing picture with which immigrants seem to be presented. The service does not appear to make certain in all cases that the people we admit to this country are people who can become good Canadian citizens and subscribe to our democratic ideals. In my opinion the minister would be well advised to go to Europe personally and visit some of his own immigration offices and see what is happening there.
I support some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members who have spoken in this debate to the effect that there is not effective screening of some people who come to Canada at this time. I realize there are difficulties and even though there is careful screening some unsuitable people are bound to slip through the screen; but we are of the opinion that not enough attention is being given to stop that type of person.
I have had several questions brought to my attention recently, and indeed one of the managers of our national employment service brought to my attention the arrogance with which a former SS man treated him because he could not give him a job immediately. I can also tell you of an experience I had
6810	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration recently with another immigrant. I spoke to this chap because I am always interested in finding out how they are getting on, and I said to him, "How do you like Canada?" He said, "Well, not too much". I said, "What is wrong?" and he said, "In Canada you say 'Uncle Louie' and in Germany we say 'Herr Adenauer' I said, "What else is wrong?" and he said, "In Canada when a Canadian soldier is in a restaurant and a Canadian officer comes in he goes on eating. But in Germany when a German officer comes in a soldier stands up, salutes, and opens the door". Then I said, "What else?" and he replied, "Too many Jews in Canada. Hitler fixed them". I did not want to get upset with the man but I hope he will change his ideas after living here some time. However, that shows that we are getting people into Canada who, after all that has happened in recent years, have not any idea of what we stand for in this country. Certainly there are hundreds of thousands of good German people anxious to come to this country who want to live under improved conditions and accept our democratic way of life. But I do not think it is necessary to bring to this country people who still adhere to the philosophy of those who saw fit to join the German elite guard and SS troops. Now, that is all I am going to say in this connection.
I say these things with conviction and feeling because Canadian citizenship means something and it is something we should extend to people who in accepting it realize they are accepting one of the most valued citizenships in the world. I might add that the conversation with the man about whom I spoke was held in the presence of the widow of one of the finest men who ever lived in Canada, a man of Jewish descent and who died 10 years ago from his war disability.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I leave that subject at that point, and I now want to say a few words on our general immigration policy. I think that in certain aspects our policy, other than the policy for screening, is unfair to Canadians and unfair to the immigrants. I do not think we should bring in immigrants unless we are certain they are going to be placed in employment and are not going to compete with Canadians for already scarce housing. The present unplanned policy is unfair to Canadians and the immigrants concerned. It is now providing competition for employment and for scarce housing. We recognize our national responsibility to help ease the tremendous burdens created in Europe and other countries, and we think we have got to do all we can to provide homes for those people who need them. That is why the C.C.F. party has continually


urged a certain program with respect to immigration. That program is an assurance that standards of employment, wages, hours, and conditions of work of immigrants shall not be less than those in effect for other Canadians. Careful preparation and planning to ensure that houses and jobs are available for those who come and that the livelihood and living standards of our present population are not threatened. Also, non-discriminatory selection of immigrants from all countries and categories subject only to the limitations of a planned immigration scheme. Our immigration policy should provide for the bringing to Canada of as many desirable immigrants as can be absorbed into our economy without creating unemployment or intensifying the housing shortage.
We should also make very certain that no undesirable persons are allowed into Canada or obtain Canadian citizenship. As I said before there are multitudes of good people from other lands who would make excellent citizens in this country. I also think we should stop bringing immigrants to Canada to work on contract labour on railroads and projects like that where there are no collective agreements and on which they can be exploited and employed for less than persons employed for that class of labour generally receive.
Now, I want to make a plea for the admission of certain persons who are relatives of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin and I would like to make that plea as vigorous as I can. I realize some of these people have been admitted to the country and permitted to obtain citizenship. I might say that I had a long association with many excellent Canadian citizens of Chinese origin. They never become charges of the state and never ask for any government assistance. That fact is recognized across this country. They live in peace and harmony with other residents and have become essential ingredients of many communities in Canada. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to the brief presented by the Chinese benevolent association in which they ask for an easing of the regulations. As a matter of fact, we are showing discrimination against certain Canadian citizens, namely these Canadian citizens of Chinese origin, East Indian origin and other origins. We are treating them differently from the way in which other citizens in Canada are treated. This brief asks for consideration of certain important things. I am not going to take the time to deal with them at the moment. I am sure that the minister has gone over the subject carefully.

I urge that the representations of these excellent Canadian citizens of Chinese origin be sympathetically considered by the minister and his department.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the committee is endeavouring to complete today consideration of this extremely important department. I therefore will not hold up matters unduly. However, I think it is unfortunate that we are pressed for time in considering such an important subject as the one that is before the committee at the present time.
The whole problem of immigration is one of the most complex ones that could be considered today because it deals with the subject of population movements. The movements of population have a vitally important bearing upon the delicate and difficult question of international affairs. Immigration is a matter that is extremely vital to Canada because, with the exception of a few North American Indians and Eskimos, all of us in this country are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants.
Since the war there has been an increasing emphasis on the necessity for increasing our human resources just as rapidly as possible. In the discussion today other hon. members have referred to the present change in attitude with regard to immigration arising from the unemployment situation of the past winter. As a result of the changing economic circumstances as our post-war boom tends to settle down, we find that there have been extremes of optimism and pessimism expressed in regard to the problem of immigration. We still see rather extravagant prophecies as to the population potential of Canada for the immediate future. On the other hand, there are those who recommend a severe tightening up on the influx of new citizens by the process of immigration.
Coming as I do from the western part of Canada, I tend to side with the more optimistic viewpoint. Perhaps that is because we in the west are continually faced with the wide open spaces and it becomes almost inevitable that the westerner leans toward an optimistic attitude with regard to population prospects for the future.
In a newspaper comment which dealt with the observance of 40 years of political activity in this country by the Minister of Agriculture I was interested to read that, in summing up that long experience in the public life of his country, he stressed-and stressed it strongly-the need for a larger population. Then yesterday the hon. member for Rosthern, speaking on the subject of the Saskatchewan dam, also dealt with 83276-431
26, 1954	6811
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the population problem from the western point of view. In Manitoba we have reached a provincial population of 790,000. In that vast geographic area a population of 790,000 is merely the proverbial drop in the bucket. I can understand why the Minister of Agriculture and other hon. members on the government side of the chamber are leaning strongly towards the need for a rapid increase in population resources within the restrictions of the ebb and flow of the economic situation. The only final solution for our western problems, of course, is an expansion of the domestic markets by means of population increase.
All that is merely by way of introduction. We could spend a long time in discussing many of the points that have been raised. The fact that they are so numerous and so complex merely indicates that there is a great need for a comprehensive consideration of this important subject of immigration. Such a comprehensive consideration of the subject is not going to be possible today nor, unfortunately, has it been possible since I came to the House of Commons in 1951. Perhaps some time in the not too far distant future there might be provided an opportunity to come to more realistic grips with this subject which has so many facets and which has such great significance for a young, developing and expanding country such as is our Dominion of Canada.
I have endeavoured to look back into the record of Canadian immigration in the past since confederation. So far as I can see, there has never been an aggressive policy carried out in this regard. Since we became a nation, the tendency has been to drift with the tide and to proceed on the basis of a stop-and-go policy. As far as the historical record indicates, there has been a general lack of imagination and vision. The immigration influx from time to time has been determined more by circumstances outside of Canada than by vigorous action from within. There is a possible exception to that statement in the movement of immigrants into the western plains when they were first opened for settlement. But the other great periods of immigration have been largely the result of circumstances beyond the shores of Canada. An example of such a period is the post-world-war I period when, owing to disturbed conditions in Europe, there was a large influx of new citizens into Canada. Then along came the depression and up until 1947 or 1948 immigration remained comparatively static. In the report of the minister of mines and resources-under which department immigration was handled in those days -for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1938,
6812	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration at page 234 I was interested to read the following statement, which indicates that even during the depths of the depression the officials responsible had a somewhat guilty conscience concerning our half-hearted immigration program. The report says:
Were it not for the fact that the Canadian public has become accustomed to small immigration returns from year to year the statement now published that Canada, with its vast territory and immense natural resources, received last year only 1,300 newcomers per month would be a matter of comment, having in mind the contribution that immigration has made to the opening up of the dominion in the past.
That state of affairs persisted, as I have indicated, until 1947. Then because of external pressure, again in the first instance largely arising from the refugee problem created by world war II, the government of Canada reluctantly moved into more active immigration again. As you read the debates of the house on immigration in the immediate post-war years or in the last two years of the war, 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947, you see there was a growing demand that Canada do something regarding the very urgent problem of the millions of refugees who had emerged out of the war situation. I came to the conclusion that members of parliament expressing public opinion were away ahead of the government with regard to the problem of displaced persons. As the result of the urgings of members, action was finally taken in 1947 and since that time we have had a fairly aggressive immigration program. However, I cannot help but comment that as the result of this historic reluctance to act in an aggressive manner, which has been characteristic of Canadian immigration policy right from the beginning of confederation, we missed out on a good many excellent potential Canadians. We missed out on a large number of refugee children, and I cannot help but think that if we had adopted, on a permanent basis, with respect to refugee children a policy similar to that which was adopted in the early years of the war when children were evacuated temporarily from the United Kingdom because of the spread of aerial bombardment, we would have made a great humanitarian gesture, a gesture that would have paid off in rich dividends in the future.
That is water under the bridge, but I refer to that situation because it is still typical of the attitude we find prevailing with respect to immigration policy at the present time. There is a lack of broad imagination and vision, although as the result of public opinion and parliamentary pressure we are beginning to move forward.
Dinsdale.I

There is another aspect of immigration which interests me. It seems to me that we have largely ignored humanitarian considerations in our immigration program. The fact that we have waited for external pressure, instead of initiating any aggressive program in the past, is indicative of this situation. Our attitude towards deportation, which was outlined by the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers in this debate, is also typical of the lack of humanitarian concern. I think it is extremely unfortunate in view of the world situation in this mid-twentieth century period. There might have been some excuse for such an attitude in the past before the international concept of human activity emerged, but today we are forced to consider the age-old questions:	Am I my
brother's keeper? Who is my neighbour? Belief in the inherent inferiority and superiority of various races was fairly widely accepted even in Christian countries, notwithstanding the biblical dictum that He hath made of one blood all nations to dwell on the face of the earth. That belief in inherent inferiority and superiority was more or less generally accepted a few decades ago. But fortunately these ideas are tending to disappear under the pressure of circumstances as we are forced to rub shoulders more closely with the representatives of the various nations of the world.
Other members speaking today have referred to the broad principles and policy under which Canadian immigration is carried on, and I am not going to repeat what has already been said. I think all members of the house would agree that there must be some process of selection, on an ethnic basis, if you wish. You must keep out obvious undesirables, criminal types, mental incompetents and so forth, and the economic factor must be considered. But 1 am going to raise once more a subject that has been dealt with by almost every member who has spoken today, the question of the obvious discrimination towards Canadian citizens of Chinese origin. I feel that the legislation on our statute books respecting immigration is a carry-over from an attitude of mind that should have disappeared in our twentieth century civilization. I am not going to go into details concerning the Chinese problem, but it seems to me that the principle enunciated in the house on June 28, 1951, as recorded at page 4863 of Hansard, has not been applied as broadly as it might have been under the circumstances. At that time

the minister, who had been questioned on a problem of the immigration of dependents of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin, said:
Having in mind the present situation in China-
He was referring of course to the political disturbances there.
-and the known desire of parents to have their children with them, we have come to the conclusion that we will give consideration to those cases of unmarried children over twenty-one up to the age of twenty-five, to see if the circumstances warrant their admission on the grounds I have stated.
On the grounds of hardship.
Now, that was a very encouraging announcement, because ever since the disturbing events on the Chinese mainland the problem of the movement of dependents of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin has become increasingly urgent. I find that in application, however, of this broader principle, it only applies to those who are the remaining survivors of the family on the mainland. If there is any other member of the family still resident within China, no exception is made in the 21-year limitation for unmarried children.
This has resulted in a problem that was inevitable. The children of Canadian citizens succeed in getting to Hong Kong, which is the jumping-off point to Canada; and, because of the narrow application of the regulation, that is as far as they get. I understand the brief from the Chinese benevolent society indicates there are some 6,000 of them in Hong Kong waiting permission to join a father, in most cases, because the Chinese population in this country has tended to be largely a male population, owing to earlier policy in regard to their admission.
Perhaps I could emphasize the problem by just giving broadly one or two cases. I am interested in two cases in which the children are between 21 and 25. One is the son of a Chinese laundryman who is alone, and looking for someone to take over his business. The other is the son of a Chinese Canadian restaurant owner, who again is alone and he is quite willing to sponsor his son. He is quite willing to assure the son will not become an economic liability, and to comply with all the other demands of our Canadian immigration policy. The only reason both children are not admissible is that there are relatives still remaining on the mainland. They are in Hong Kong. They cannot go back to the mainland on pain of death. I do not believe they would be too popular with the present regime there, and they cannot go forward because of the regulations. This does constitute a humanitarian problem of some considerable proportions.
26, 1954	6813
Supply

Citizenship and Immigration
I do not believe we need to labour that point any further. But it seems to require the sort of action that was finally taken in the immediate post-war years in dealing with the refugee problem in Europe. When the Canadian government finally did get under way, after pressure from parliament and public opinion, a tremendous job was done, but many lives were lost and much suffering was caused because we delayed our action in that regard.
I said that most members of the house agreed broadly with the present policy of the department of immigration. If there is one query I would raise it is the seemingly arbitrary power of the officials of the department. In order to assure flexibility in immigration affairs, it seems that officials of the department, by means of order in council, can almost control the immigration situation as they wish. This fact is illustrated in so far as deportation matters are concerned where the officials, without recourse to the normal channels of justice, can arbitrarily deport immigrants from this country.
There is another query that comes to my mind, and I have endeavoured to gather some information on this very complex problem. At the moment it would appear that the occupational categories are being strongly stressed with reference to the movement of immigrants from Europe. The categories that are being stressed are those of domestics and agricultural workers. In looking at the statistics for the past two years, 1952 and 1953, this has resulted in a rather substantial influx of immigrants from Holland, from Germany and from Italy. In endeavouring to obtain information on this matter, I find that the reason these categories apply to these particular countries is the obvious reason that they are more amenable to the work of domestics or agricultural workers. I find, looking at the statistics for immigration from Greece for 1952, we have 1,691 and for the calendar year 1953, we have 2,059.
I happen to know there is quite a strong demand for a less restrictive policy in regard to immigration from Greece. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Greek situation would be comparable to the Italian situation so far as domestic and labour requirements were concerned. The answer seems to be just the reverse, that the Greeks do not adapt as readily in this country as do the Italians. There are Greek citizens in Canada already who, it would seem, have made a very successful adjustment to their new life in Canada. Notwithstanding this occupational factor, I have discovered that it is not compulsory for an immigrant to remain indefinitely in domestic or agricultural work. In fact,
6814	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the period of service at the maximum, I understand, is one year, and on the average the immigrants from those countries stay on the job to which they are originally sent for a period of some two months. There would seem to be other factors involved than the straight occupational requirement. Unfortunately, that is as far as I got with the inquiry because, as I say, it is a matter of policy, and nothing further could be said on the matter.
Other members want to have something to say in this discussion, so I should like to conclude by suggesting that a topic of such importance as immigration, connected as it is with the general problem of population and human resources of this country, should receive wider consideration by this house than it has in the past. During my first session here in 1951, amendments were introduced to the act. They had been passed before I was aware they were before the house. In 1952, when the new act was introduced, the experience was exactly the same. I would very strongly suggest that we would have a more realistic immigration policy if members were brought more closely in contact with the scheme of things. All these divergent viewpoints created the belief that immigrants are a threat to the workers in this country. On the other hand the urgent demand of the west for larger population can be reconciled only if members have an opportunity to gather all the information and data involved and then, on the basis of that information, determine the policy that is best for this country.
I do not think such an important matter should be left entirely in the hands of officials of the department. I realize that we are having almost a full day's debate on the subject, but I wonder if what has been said in this debate by hon. members will have much effect in changing the present attitude towards some of these urgent problems to which reference has already been made.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that, just as in the immediate post-war years, when we had a refugee problem to contend with, and there was a tremendous pressure of population in Europe, the people of Canada would be only too willing to make a maximum effort in assisting to solve this problem. Likewise I feel that if, through their elected representatives, the people are taken into the confidence of the department, and are allowed to have the necessary information, rather than simply be told that a certain person is inadmissible on grounds that cannot be revealed, we shall be able to come closer to a reconciliation of the pessimistic and optimistic viewpoints in these matters.


In the past the people of Canada have been ahead of their government in their thinking, so far as this matter is concerned. They have responded, when they have been called upon to respond in connection with the solution of very urgent population problems in the world. They would respond today in a similar manner if they had the opportunity to do so.


Mr. Noseworlhy:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all of us appreciate the minister's difficulties in the matter of immigration at the present time. While I think most Canadians agree that a few million people cannot expect to hold half a continent indefinitely, while other countries in the world are crowded, and while most people are agreed that it would be in the interests of the over-all Canadian economy that we have a larger population to share our tax burden, our transportation charges and the like, the question becomes involved and one about which there is a great deal of disagreement when we run into a period such as we are facing at the present time.
So long as our economy was expanding, so long as there was full employment, so long as skilled mechanics were needed, industrial workers were needed and labourers were needed, the Canadian people generally welcomed immigration. But today, with several hundred thousand Canadians unemployed, and with limited housing accommodation, the people of Canada by and large resent the influx of large numbers of immigrants. During a period of unemployment trade unions across this country are questioning the right of the government to bring large numbers of immigrants to the country at this time, thus swelling the army of unemployed.
People who find difficulty securing housing accommodation often resent the fact that new Canadians can obtain housing, or occupy housing, the supply of which is very limited. The influx of large numbers of immigrants at a time such as this does not lend itself to the creation of a spirit of friendliness as between Canadian citizens and new Canadians, nor does it do anything but stir up trouble and difficulty.
Much as we need a larger population in this country, the first responsibility of the government, if it is to supply that need, and if the government is to admit large numbers of people to this country, is to take measures to see that employment is available, as well as housing accommodation.
There are certain sections of the press and certain interests across Canada that are clamouring for more immigration. Those

same sections of the press and those same interests are generally decrying the fact that industrial workers are receiving too much money. They are decrying the fact that costs are going up, and they attribute the rise in those costs to the rising wage scales.
There are many special interests involved in bringing immigrants to this country. I would think that one of the minister's difficulties, one he must guard against in the interests of the whole country, is that he must see to it that the immigrants brought to this country are not brought here by any special interests, to serve those interests primarily. What we want in this country are immigrants who will become good Canadians, who are brought here for that purpose, and are not brought here for the purpose of serving any particular interest.
I suppose we have always been faced with the problem of employers interested in immigration for the sake of getting cheap labour. We have that class of employer with us today, and I am quite sure the minister would be the last person who would want to encourage immigration to serve special economic interests and to reduce the scale of wages for Canadian workers. It does not matter what that special group is, whether it is a religious group, a national group or an economic group, if that group is particularly interested in bringing immigrants to this country for the purpose of furthering the interests of that particular group, then I think the minister has to be on guard. We do not want this country filled up merely for the sake of filling it up with immigrants who are brought here to serve any particular interested group. As I have said before, in the interests of Canada, we want immigrants who will become worthy and loyal Canadian citizens.
I have a few special problems that I want to bring to the minister's attention. They are of a general nature and I think had better be brought up at this particular point. I have already spoken of employers bringing immigrants into this country for the sake of reducing our wage scale. Since early June I have had on the order paper a series of some thirteen questions, which were made an order for return a week ago, but the answers to which I have no hope whatever of receiving this session. These questions relate to one employer, the R. F. Welch company. Among other questions on the order paper, which probably the minister can answer today, are these: What arrangement, if any, has the R. F. Welch company with the department of immigration for the purpose of bringing immigrant workers to
26, 1954	6315
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration this country? Is my information correct that this particular company had an office established in some European countries, offices established on the maritime coast and offices established in the Union station at Toronto, next door to the government's own department of immigration? What is the nature of the contracts under which these workers are brought in by that company?
My information is that the immigrants brought into this country by that particular company are brought to work first of all on the Canadian National Railways. I am informed by trade union organizers that these newly arrived immigrants stay but a short time on their first job, and then are replaced by a new batch of immigrants. I am informed by the general chairman of the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees of the Canadian National Railways that the Canadian National Railways itself has been evading the order of a labour relations board, dated November, 1951, by transferring these newly arrived workers to the R. F. Welch company for payroll purposes, instead of keeping them on the Canadian National, and consequently are keeping these men employed at much lower rates than the rates fixed in the contract entered into with the workers union.
That is one problem I want to call to the minister's attention. Another complaint I get is that certain employers are able to persuade newly arrived immigrants that if they join a trade union, or participate in trade union activities, they will be deported. I should like the minister to tell us that personally. I doubt if anyone-


Walter Edward Harris: May I say at this moment I never heard of such a matter from anyone, and if my hon. friends know of any trade unions who have that complaint, will they please send it to me and talk about it with me before they bring it up here in this house. I have no objection to my hon. friend speaking, of course, but it is really unfortunate that we now hear for the first time of complaints that I have no opportunity to investigate.


Joseph William Noseworthy: This whole matter can be cleared up with a statement from the minister to the effect that no one is ever deported from this country because he joined a legitimate trade union or participated in legitimate trade union activities.


Walter Edward Harris: I say that unhesitatingly, and if anybody suggested that that should be so I would oppose it in this house.
6816	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am very happy to have the minister put that statement on the record.
I have one other question to raise with the minister regarding immigration. It is one that I have dealt with on other occasions. I am merely going to ask the minister to tell us what action, if any, the government has taken or proposes to take as the result of the brief presented to him during the latter part of April by the Negro Citizenship Association on behalf of immigrants from the West Indies, those British subjects who, by regulation of the immigration department, are not British subjects and cannot be classified as British subjects for immigration purposes. What consideration was given to that brief? I shall not take the time of the committee to put the points of that brief on the record. The minister has the brief. I merely ask him to comment on it.


Mr. Michener:: I do not wish to repeat, and therefore I shall limit my statement as to the principles involved to an affirmation of my belief that immigration is desirable and necessary, and that its general effect is clearly to add to the sum total of employment, although in some places and at some time it may seem to have the opposite effect. The specific matters I wish to bring up are matters of practice and I do say that with some diffidence because my experience with the administration of the act is limited and these are impressions formed from that rather limited experience.
I appreciate there have been instances which perhaps have generated an attitude of over-caution if not suspicion in the administration of the act in order to be sure that the department is not deceived in enforcing the act and the policy of the government.
I would like to make a plea for a more sympathetic approach in certain cases. Those cases are the ones in which family relationships are involved. In the name of common humanity it seems to me that in these cases the utmost amount of sympathy should be displayed in the administration of the act. After all, the subject matter of the administration is human beings and not chattels or livestock. They are people who have family relationships and family feelings. I have in mind three different sorts of cases which will illustrate the type of approach I am suggesting.
First, there is the case of a wife in England of a Canadian citizen living in Canada and naturally she wishes to join him here. Her difficulty is a scar on her lung which naturally is a matter of concern from the medical point of view. After her case had
iMr. Harris.]

been deferred for some time and being in great anxiety to be accepted she visited private doctors and was examined apparently to their satisfaction, but permission is still being refused. That is a case of family separation and a case in which if there is any doubt I think a decision should be made in favour of family unity rather than the converse.
Then another type of case involves the nephew of a Polish Canadian resident engineer of reputation and standing who will shortly become a Canadian citizen. This case illustrates what I have in mind and regardless of the merits of the case I think it makes the point. This Polish uncle in Canada has no children and he and his wife established here wish to bring their nephew in and adopt and rear him as their own child. He is not an infant. He was behind the iron curtain as a young man in his late teens and he was so anxious to join his relatives that he shipped as a seaman on a Polish freighter and when he got into an English port he jumped overboard and swam ashore. He is in England now and would like to join his uncle. They would like to have him here. That is another case in which there are family ties involved and in which it seems to me a little different approach is needed than the cold and mechanical application of the immigration rules.
The third type of case is that of the children of Chinese Canadian citizens. Their plight has been dealt with sufficiently today and I wish to associate myself with what has been said on their behalf. There are not many involved and it seems to me that if any error is to be made in these cases it should be made, in cases where family ties are involved, in favour of unifying families rather than keeping them separated. If it is a matter of tipping the scales then I suggest that in such cases the scale ought to be tipped if necessary. It comes down to humanizing what might, where large numbers of people are involved, deteriorate into mechanical administration.
Another point in the administration of this act which involves thousands of decisions in the course of a year is the question of admittance. Since we had 168,000 admitted last year I think it would be fair to suppose that an equal number or perhaps even more were interviewed and not admitted. I realize this is a great administrative problem but it seems to me, as one who has been accustomed to the determination of truth in the

open court where the parties are represented, that something of that procedure might well be applied to the department of immigration.
I am not well enough versed in the administration of the act to know whether counsel are allowed to appear with an applicant, but I do know in many cases it is difficult for the party involved to determine why a decision has been what it was. Very often if the applicant knew he could answer the objection, and it seems to me that what is in issue in these proceedings is of equal importance to the issues in criminal prosecutions or civil suits involving personal and property rights, and it warrants the same sort of treatment as a Canadian or foreign citizen can get under the judicial process.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what I suggest is that the minister, who is also a lawyer, should look into the possibility of regularizing the procedure in a way in which those parties who come before administration officers for a decision involving their admission to Canada know the basis on which a decision will be taken, have the right to be represented, and the right to know that decision so that the whole matter be dealt with as far as possible in a judicial manner.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the hour is getting late I trust the minister will excuse me if I make my remarks almost in point form in order to save a little time.
First of all, I would like to say that in my dealings with the officers of the department I have always found the minister and his officials most considerate and they have always looked into any matters I have had occasion to inquire about with courtesy and promptness.
On the question of immigration I think we all agree, as many speakers have pointed out, that we must have more people in order to develop our country, create more employment and more markets. But I think the method of obtaining these people might be somewhat altered. I should like to say at the present time that very many fine people have come into this country, and in my own riding we have a great many people from The Netherlands about whom I would like to say that they are just about as fine a type of citizen as we have got from any place.
In regard to the policy of immigration there are one or two suggestions I would like to make. We have heard a great deal during this session and within the last few days about seasonal unemployment in Canada, and this seems to take place mainly
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration during the months of December, January, February, and March. I imagine this suggestion has probably been explored by the department but if not I suggest that the minister look into the possibility of this suggestion. I suggest that immigrants should be brought into this country in months other than December, January, February, and March if at all possible because during these months seasonal unemployment is at its worst and it simply makes it more difficult to absorb these people into jobs.
The next thing about which I should like to make some brief remarks is the matter of the secrecy in which a good deal of the departmental work seems to go on. I fully realize that in matters of screening people that are coming into Canada and the methods that are used to do this naturally must be secret and cannot be open to the public. But in other things I cannot see why this great secrecy must prevail.
As a brief example, may I say that I had a case recently where a lady came over from Germany under an agreement to marry a man, but when she came here she did not marry him. She did not wish to do so and I understand she intimated that she did not wish to do so because she did not think he had sufficient finances; and she was looking for another more affluent husband. That may or may not have been true. Those are the reports that I received. I looked into the matter rather carefully. The department investigated the matter and probably did so much more carefully than I did. I made some inquiries of the department through the deputy minister. I said I should like to find out the results of their investigation. In a letter received from the deputy minister on June 2 last the following paragraph appeared;
You ask that you be permitted to see the reports obtained in this case with reference to the failure to marry. Departmental records are strictly confidential and it is therefore impossible for me to accede to your request.
As I say, in matters of screening for national security I can see that those reports must be confidential. But in matters like this I can see no reason for keeping it in confidence. There is a question in this particular case whether people suitable or not suitable are being brought into this country. I think in those matters, where national security is not at stake, that these reports should be open to people who are interested in the case and in particular to members of the House of Commons.
There is one other remark that I should like to make at this time. I should like to put this in the form of a question to the minister. He may be familiar with the
6818	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration circumstances or he may not.- It is a matter that aroused interest in western Ontario about a year ago or possibly a little longer. There were a great many reports in the newspaper at that time about German immigrants who were on farms, and about a large black car arriving, two or three people getting out and talking to the immigrant and the next day the immigrant had gone, lock, stock and barrel, or perhaps I should say bag and baggage.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but I think I can save him a great deal of time by saying that there was not a black car.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Possibly it was a green one.


Walter Edward Harris: No. Just to settle the matter now, perhaps, and to save my hon. friend time, I might say this. All this difficulty arose because a black car with a Quebec licence, containing two immigrants, brother and uncle of the one in the hon. member's county, visited him on Sunday and he disappeared next day. The disappearance was blamed on this car.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am glad to hear that the minister has looked into the case and has investigated it. I am glad that is the explanation the minister received. However, I have had another explanation presented to me. Briefly it w-as as follows. Perhaps the minister would care to make a comment. I was told this as to a number of German immigrants who, I understand, had their passages assisted by the government on condition that they remain as agricultural labourers until such time as their passage is paid back. A number of them came over in those circumstances. I was told that certain manufacturers in various parts of the country-I understand from the province of Quebec in the textile industry-approached these people and agreed to pay off the amount they owed the government if they would work under a certain contract of labour for a period of time. These immigrants are told that if they break this contract they will be sent home. The purpose of this is that a number of people from Germany who were supposed to be agricultural labourers and really are not, got over here and got into factories where they wished to work and certain manufacturers, I understand, in this way obtained cheaper labour. As I say, I have had this report from two or three sources which I believe to be reliable. I have no factual information. I should like to put it to the minister in the form of a question on which he may wish to comment.
.Mr. Nesbitt.]

The next thing I wish to mention is the matter of citizenship. I should like to make a few brief suggestions on the methods of presenting citizenship certificates at the present time. I fully realize that in the county courts at the present time-at least in some of them; I know it is done in our own county-a local judge makes a nice little speech to these people. If that procedure were followed out all through the country I am sure it would be highly satisfactory. When people who come to this country receive their citizenship certificates, I think the duties and responsibilities of citizenship should be impressed upon them to a little bit greater extent than is done at the present time. I just throw this out as a suggestion. The minister might, once a year, make a tour through -the country and appear at a number of places-or, if owing to his duties he was unable to do so, the chief justice of each province could do something similar-and present the new citizens with their certificates of citizenship and give them a brief address at the time, or possibly a not so brief address, on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship in this country. At the same time possibly a booklet could be issued on the Canadian way of life, and everyman's edition of our constitution and form of government. I think that would be a good suggestion because when these people get their certificates mailed to them, that fact fails to impress upon them the duties of Canadian citizenship. I think that a little bit more solemnity in the matter would probably be of considerable benefit.
I have two further brief remarks to make. The first is on the national gallery. I think the national gallery of Canada is doing a particularly fine job. They have a fine collection of paintings, particularly Canadian paintings. I should like to see more of the money that is spent on paintings spent on Canadian paintings. Among the paintings there is a collection of paintings by one of our first painters, namely Cornelius Kreighoff. The Tom Thomson collection is very good. If it were possible to get more of them, I think it would be better. When people from other countries come to the national gallery here, they want to see evidence of Canadian culture. While the evidence there is very good at the present time, nevertheless I think there should be more. If large sums of money are to be spent on the acquisition of oil paintings, I think at least a large proportion of it should go for Canadian paintings.
The reason I mention this matter is that I recall the acquisition of five paintings by certain European artists for the sum of

$360,000. I know the minister made some remarks about this matter some time ago, I believe at the end of last March. He said that these paintings were purchased for the purpose of illustrating certain periods of certain European schools of art. That maybe all very well and good. But, as I pointed out, these pictures were painted by relatively obscure artists. There were five of them, and they cost a total of $360,000. That works out to about $72,000 apiece.
In this regard I refer to a news item in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Wednesday, May 19 last, which refers to the Toronto art gallery being robbed of a very famous painting. As a matter of fact, it was a world-famous painting called "Elevation of the Cross" by Peter Paul Rubens, who was certainly not an obscure artist. This painting was one of the more famous paintings in the world and it was valued at $30,000. I do not understand how these paintings by relatively obscure artists would be valued at $72,000 apiece. It is something that does not seem reasonable to me. Possibly the minister, when making his remarks, would care to give us a little bit of further information in this regard. I should be interested to know how these paintings were purchased. Was it by a private deal? Was it by public auction? Who did the purchasing and were any commissions paid? I think these matters are of considerable interest.
The last item I should like to mention or to which I should like to make a brief reference is the national film board. I think the work of this board has been very good in the past. Some of the movies, particularly the one "Stratford Adventure", as I believe it was called, is a particularly fine movie and I imagine that not only will it be a fine movie from a cultural point of view but probably it will be a money-maker, as I understand it is likely to be.
I should like to mention a play that has been written by Judge Eric Cross in our county and called "The Patriots".
He was formerly minister of municipal affairs for the province of Ontario, attorney general and also minister of education. He has had wide cultural experience -and has done quite a bit of work in this field. This play, "The Patriots", is about Canada in the period from 1837 to 1848. It deals with the rebellion in Upper and Lower Canada. Robert Baldwin is the central figure and hero of the play. It deals with such famous people as Bishop Strachan, Samuel Lount, William Lyon Mackenzie, Louis Lafontaine and others. I have seen the play and have had some experience in one way and another 83276-432
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in the theatre. I have seen many plays on Broadway not as good as this one written by Judge Eric Cross.
It has already been presented by Queen's University. It is being presented by the London Little Theatre next year, which is the largest little theatre in Canada. It was presented for five days this year by the Woodstock Little Theatre to capacity houses, and I understand that the province of Ontario is considering this play as possible reading for the Ontario schools.
It has been suggested that the play might very well be made into a movie by the national film board. I know there are many technical difficulties but I think the matter should be considered. It is a fine play from a theatrical and historical point of view. I know that Judge Cross spent many months in very careful research. Here we have a fine play, historically accurate, which would be of great educational benefit to the children in our schools. They could see our history in action, and I would strongly urge the minister to refer this matter to the national film board for consideration.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, among this storm of criticism I should like to inject a pleasanter note, if my hon. friends to my right will forgive me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You will spoil the whole atmosphere.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I do not think anyone can accuse me particularly of not performing my function of being a critic of the government at times and, indeed, of most of its work. However, I do want to say something which is a rather personal matter because it applies to the minister himself. I am not going to echo the words which would be spoken by the hon. member for Fort William if he were here because he would utter a sort of blanket benediction upon the cabinet minister as such. But I do want to pay him a tribute as a minister and as a man and to thank him personally for the courtesy, care and consideration which he has displayed with respect to any matter having to do with the admission of immigrants or other matters which I have had occasion to take up with him since he took over this portfolio. I do that without reservation but I do reserve of course my right to criticize when I feel it is justified. When I indicated to my hon. friend here that I was going to interject these remarks into this debate he said -that probably the minister would consider that I had been softened up so far as criticism was concerned by the kindly acts. However, that was just in the spirit of fun. I simply want to reiterate what I had intended to say and what I did say when I rose from my seat.
6820	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I too want to
say a few words on this question this afternoon. It has been many a day since I have listened to as many worth-while speeches and contributions as I have heard in the debate that has taken place today. I am not going to take very much time. In my opinion the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Kamloops and the Leader of the Opposition presented the views of most Canadians today so far as immigration is concerned. I do want to say something about the question raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West with respect to the treatment that traitors to the cause of freedom have received and also the two cases that the Leader of the Opposition presented. They certainly seem to hurt. I do not think Canadians generally like that attitude and the way things were handled in these instances because on the other hand they see that it is very difficult for deserving people, sometimes relatives of people already in Canada, to get into this country because of one reason-I was going to say excuse-or another.
I know of one particular case. This man was turned down and there were questions asked and answers given. I made some inquiries in the country in which he lived. I had been led to believe by the immigration department that he was ill and not able to work. I found out that he was holding down two jobs in his own country, and when he finally arrived here he made a very good citizen. Maybe he was too good a worker and someone here was afraid that he was going to hold down two jobs. Maybe that is the reason someone did not want him.
I think it was the hon. member for Kootenay West who mentioned the matter of relatives of Canadians whether they be Chinese Canadians or others. It was pointed out that these people are prepared to provide for their relatives if illness should overtake them. I think we are sometimes a little bit sticky about that although I do know that if such people fall ill and have to be hospitalized at the expense of the state the department is criticized because they allowed these people to enter the country. Several members have mentioned the relatives of Chinese Canadians and I will not dwell on that. I think the minister has already made up his mind what he is going to do about that situation. I hope he will deal with it in a Christian, democratic and humane way. I know that he will.
Some mention has been made of the rosy pictures of life in Canada that is given to citizens of other countries. I have a case in hand right at the moment. This man was


coming to this country and was desirous of purchasing a farm. A certain figure was named and he was told that if he had that much money he could establish himself quite easily on a farm in Canada. That amount might have been all right back in the thirties but it was only about one-third of what is needed today. Having come to this country, having severed all his connections in the old country, he now finds having bought a farm that he does not have money for seed, machinery or livestock and that he also has a good-sized mortgage. He is going to be an old man before he gets out of the hole he is now in. Probably that amount of money would have been sufficient in some hinterland location but not in the settled parts of Canada.
I know of a German citizen who was denied access to this country. He looked around in his own land for a position and he now is harbour master of one of the great harbours of Germany. Why should he have been turned down? It was not because of the screening that is done. I have never been able to find out the reason. He was well educated and a very able man. When he was a prisoner of war in this country the farm people he was with thought a great deal of him. After he had returned to Germany and got this job he sent money back to the family with whom he had worked and paid for their trip to Germany and back out of his own pocket. He thought so much of that farm family with whom he worked during the years he was a prisoner of war, he did that for them.
Injustices do seem to occur in the department of citizenship, but at the same time I suppose we in this country have to treat everyone alike. This couple wrote me a letter after becoming Canadian citizens. In writing the letter to me the lady said:
At the age of 17 my husband joined the imperial army and fought in world war I, and then served 9 years in India. Then he came to Canada and years later, at the beginning of the war in 1939, he joined the Canadian army and served in the Canadian army until his discharge at the close of the war. It was not until he decided to visit some friends in the United States, he found out he was not a Canadian citizen.
It was at the last court held in London, Ontario, that he and his wife received their Canadian citizenship. It seems to me a peculiar thing that a man who served the cause in the two world wars would need to go through the process of getting Canadian citizenship.
I want to deal next with the Indian affairs branch. Indian affairs is one of those things for which I suppose there is

not always an answer. I just had the opportunity of talking with the new director and I am very pleased. I think he will do a good job in that department. I realize it is a difficult department, and what you do in one case perhaps does not satisfy in another. I am just going to mention one particular case.
Early in March of this year two brothers who had an interest in a piece of property wrote to the Indian agent indicating that when the estate was settled they would like to purchase the property. The Indian affairs branch did not advise them that it was not for sale, and later they found that the property had been leased to other than an Indian. When I made inquiry it was pointed out to me that the brothers had not indicated they wanted to lease it, but had wanted to buy it. I know very well that if the brothers had been told they could not buy the property but could lease it they would have been glad to lease it. In the meantime the damage had been done and the men are out of that property for another year. Now, these are good people. One of the men is a pattern and dye maker in the city of Detroit, holding down a good position. I do not wonder that they are a little bitter at the administration over the way things are handled.
Throughout my constituency there is a certain amount of uneasiness about the policy of the immigration department. I believe the minister knows that as well as, if not better than I do. It has probably been brought to his attention, and no doubt he will take steps to correct it. Some things have been said during the debate about the minister's department being held off until the last. Well, some department has to be last no matter what happens, and certainly I would not criticize the minister on that account.
I feel that these other matters I have brought to the attention of the minister will be taken care of by him. If he does not, then we will criticize him or his successor at the next session.


Mr. Churchill:: My interest in immigration, Mr. Chairman, ranges over the whole field. There is one topic with which I want to deal today, and that is the long-term trend in so far as policy is concerned. In the past I have been very much interested in the policy of the department of immigration, and I am not sure we have yet a clear answer. I was looking at an article in the Legionary for January, 1953, written by a gentleman named E. H. Gurton called "The Truth about Immigration". In that article Mr. Gurton draws attention to the racial origin of the 83276-432J
26, 1954	6821
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration population of this country at the time of confederation, and the change that has taken place from that day to this. For example, in quoting from the census returns from 1901 to 1951, he shows that in 1901 the people of British origin in this country amounted to 57-03 per cent; French were 30-71 per cent; and others 12-26 per cent. Then, the writer follows it through decade after decade to 1951 where the percentages are as follows: British, 47-89; French, 30-83; others, 21-28, indicating a decline in the people of British origin in this country of approximately 10 per cent.
Then he goes on to attempt to forecast the racial basis of our population at the end of this century, and suggests that if the present immigration policy is continued, at the end of the century the people of British origin in the country will be 32 per cent; French, 30 per cent and others 38 per cent.
I am not going to deal further with that article on this occasion, Mr. Chairman, but I would draw attention to the annual report of the department for the year ended March 31, 1952. I have been looking at the table on page 28 and have made a calculation from it of those people who have come from overseas and I am excluding the section dealing with immigration from the United States of America. Those who have come from overseas who are of British stock, or as they are called here British nationals, are as follows: 1900 to 1909, approximately 60 per cent were of that stock; 1910 to 1919, 64 per cent; 1920 to 1929, 56 per cent; 1930 to 1939, 45 per cent; 1940 to 1949, 60 per cent. Over a period of 50 years, I believe the British nationals, as the report calls them, were more than 50 per cent of the total number of immigrants coming to this country from overseas.
I am not going to debate the question as to what type of people are most desirable in Canada. We are well aware of the great number of races that are represented in this country, and we are well aware of the great contribution members of those various races are making. I raise no objection whatsoever to any racial group within the country. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that there are certain marked differences within our country, and certain changes taking place. But, as I say, we fully understand that most of the rest of the world is represented in Canada at the present time. The table at pages 30 and 31 showing the racial origins of immigrants, and nationalities, for the fiscal year just ended, indicates that other than English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and French, 39 races have been represented in the group of immigrants entering Canada.
6822	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
However the question raised in my mind is this: What is the long-term policy with regard to immigration. Is there a long-term policy that bears any relationship to the question of racial origin? Or should a policy bear any relationship to the question of racial origin? Those are questions that puzzle me. I notice from the table from which I have just quoted that in this last year for which the department is reporting, the largest racial group entering this country was German, the second largest was Italian, the third largest was Dutch and the fourth largest was Polish.


Walter Edward Harris: I wonder if the hon. member would be completely fair and not class the English as a group, but rather class those from the British Isles as a group.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, I think the minister is becoming unduly disturbed. I am not attempting to be unfair at all.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member made that statement on a former occasion, and I believe I corrected him at that time. I pointed out that when he used the word "English" he was referring to English people, and not to Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Whereas, for our purposes we lump them together; and I think most people do that in Canada. The people of Canada think in terms of the British people, people from the British Isles. And I am sure if my hon. friend would use that classification he would not be indicating, as he is about to do now, that people of British origin are about fifth in order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, by no means; I had no intention of saying that at all. These groups I am speaking of are exclusive of the ones I mentioned earlier. I am speaking of the 39 different groups, other than English, Irish, Scotch, Welsh and French, who have entered this country. And I was giving the four, in their order of importance. I was not attempting in any way to indicate that the people from the British Isles did not exceed any one of those groups.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. friend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the minister should attempt with me the same type of softening up process the hon. member for Saskatoon has reported. I have not had the pleasure of that treatment.
The conclusion I draw from my remarks so far is that there appears to be something in the nature of a policy-or is it just accidental? -whereby some groups appear here in larger numbers than do others. Is it important that we should give our attention to this particular question? I am not certain that the minister has gone into this problem and thought it out


as to the various racial bases for these particular countries. But it may well be that we should give some consideration to it. If Mr. Gurton's forecast is accurate, showing that within another 50-year period people of British stock, who comprised 57 per cent in 1901, by the end of this century will comprise only 32 per cent, it is obvious that there will be a considerable change in the nature of our people.
Whether that change is desirable or not, I am not questioning at the moment. I do know from practical experience in life that the process of assimilating immigrants to the Canadian way of life is not the easiest thing in the world. I spent a sufficient number of years in the field of education to know the difficulties that confront the Canadian people in assimilating even the best of immigrants to the Canadian way of life. And as I have said on other occasions in the house, that needs to be taken into consideration when you are dealing with the question of immigration. Immigrants are brought in here and distributed across the country. The municipalities then must assume the burden of assimilating them to the Canadian way of life, and making them good Canadian citizens. And the greater part of that burden falls on the shoulders of those who are in the field of education. It also falls upon the shoulders of the taxpayers who support the school system.
I am not at all certain that the government in formulating its policy with regard to immigration, if it has one, has taken that into account. I think it is a vitally important matter. We are concerned not only with the numbers of people who enter this country, it is not a question of whether we will have 15 million or 30 million; rather we are concerned with the type of people who are here, and the type of citizens they may become.
Now, to complete my statistical survey. I gather from these figures in the departmental report that a major change in policy occurred in 1949. Up to that date the British nationals coming to this country numbered over 50 per cent of the total number of immigrants who came here annually. In 1949 the situation changed. Let me place on Hansard the figures as they appear in table No. 1 at page 28. People coming from the British Isles, including all those other areas in Great Britain I mentioned earlier, totalled 42,830 in 1949. Others, from overseas-not from the United States-totalled 75,467. Then, in 1950 there were 20,062 from the British Isles and 58,700 others. In 1951 the figure for the British Isles is 17,161 and for the others it is 60,187. In 1952 there were

29,261 from the British Isles and 164,189 others. A percentage basis for those four years indicates that approximately 25 per cent of the total number of immigrants from overseas were British nationals. I suggest this constitutes a major change in the immigration policy of this country.
Whether it has been a policy change or an accidental occurrence, I do not know. I put those facts and figures before the committee for the purpose of assisting in our investigation of the problem. But I think that if we continue conducting immigration into this country without an adequate policy in respect of racial origins that we expect to have in Canada in the future, we might be making a serious mistake.
At the same time I am not here to say that we should exclude one type or another of the races throughout the world. But it appears to me that perhaps by indirect means we are making it more advantageous or easier for some groups to come to this country than others.
The question arises: Why? Why should it be easier for certain people from Europe to come here under assisted passage schemes than it is for others? Is there a policy in this respect, or are we just drifting along? Do we want to see this country end up at the turn of the century, if Mr. Gurton's estimate is correct, with people of British stock numbering only 32 per cent. I do not know at the moment whether that would be desirable or not, but I pose the question for the benefit of the committee.


Mr. Macdonnell:: It would require a man of sterner stuff than I am to make a speech at this time of the last day of the session. But I do want to make one or two comments. In the first place I want to underline what was said by the hon. member for Kamloops, that it is highly undesirable that this debate should have been left to the last day. I suppose one can argue very sincerely that probably at the present time the immigration department and the debate of its estimates are more important than any other debate we have had. What we are doing actually in the immigration department is to decide on what kind of people we are going to be, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, or, to bring it closer home, we are deciding on the kind of people with whom our descendants are going to intermarry in the coming years.
I repeat, it is unfortunate in the highest degree that it is left like this. I suppose, however, it has sanction, or even sanctification in the eyes of the government because I understand that great parliamentary
26. 1954	6823
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration manager, the late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, laid it down as a guiding rule that in the case of the controversial departments it was wise to leave them until the end, and then the heat would drive the opposition out and they would get away without much debate. I have no doubt that is a consideration. Perhaps it is a case of the evil that men do lives after them. I leave that to the judgment of the committee.
I would repeat that it is unfortunate that it is almost impossible to give this great problem the consideration which it should have at the moment. Of course the reason it is controversial is the fact of unemployment. We know that only three or four years ago the minister used to speak freely and very interestingly about immigration, but he has not had very much to say lately, and certainly he did not get very far in what he said this morning. I do want to raise this question because I believe it is pertinent. I hold in my hand a letter signed by a gentleman by the name of F. S. Walker. This letter appeared in the Globe and Mail on June 11, and reads in part as follows:
I am a recent immigrant to Canada. Is it too much to ask Canadian immigration authorities not to send skilled men from the engineering trades to Canada until Canadian industry can absorb them? Skilled men arriving here at the present time are, like myself, unable to find employment, their skill being lost to England and not wanted in Canada.
There is more to the letter which I shall not read, but I shall read the editorial note at the bottom:
National employment officials report that conditions in certain engineering lines are currently "a bit tight" but that they hope for improvement later this year.
I do hope the minister will let us know just what is the line taken by our officials in Europe. It will be very hard for them of course to come clean and to say that jobs are not easy to get in Canada at the moment, but I do hope that what this letter depicts is not what is commonly being done; in other words, that people are not being encouraged to give up skilled jobs in Europe and to come here.
I shall not detain the committee longer, Mr. Chairman. I wish to repeat, sometimes we in the opposition are told that however little influence we seem to have at the moment, our words are not always wasted, and that they may even be listened to and remembered on future occasions. I do hope that next year this important subject will not be left to the hot 26th of June when the serried ranks of the government are trying to drive us out.
6824	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Citizenship-
57. Citizenship registration branch. $221,654.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I was under a misapprehension. I thought the minister had risen to reply.


Walter Edward Harris: I had.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not intend to let this item go by without asking a few questions. I understood the minister wanted to make general observations in reply to comments on the first item.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps anything I might say now might help my hon. friends to pass the rest of the items with dispatch. I would like to have a few moments. I realize that one should not add to the burden of the committee on his own estimates. However, there have been a few things said that require explanation and perhaps defence.
Before I make these remarks may I thank hon. members for their kind references to myself and especially for those which are directed to the officials of the department. I quite realize-and I think every hon. member does-that the immigration branch, devoted as it is to a wholly personal problem, is bound to be the subject of anxiety, irritation and at time disagreements on decisions which have been made. Anybody listening to the debate today would fully appreciate the balance of opinion that there is in the house about immigration.
We have had I think only one speech that could be described as anti-immigration, and we have had one or two who professed to support immigration but who were dubious about its value at this particular moment, or at least dubious about some of the matters involved in it. I think I can safely say that all the rest of the remarks were directed to supporting the policy of immigration, though perhaps disagreeing with particular details which were properly mentioned. In these circumstances I would be the first to agree that hon. members could bring before the committee many more cases than they have mentioned in which it would seem that the decision might not meet the approval of the hon. member himself, and might be made differently under a different minister. That is fully appreciated.
I am grateful for references to those cases, and I shall look at them again, though in many instances I have already seen them myself. Before I mention in detail what has been said, I do want to suggest that the aspersions cast upon me about holding my estimates to the final day are wholly unfounded. This is only the second occasion on which it did occur. Far from not having
(Mr. Macdonnell.]

a full debate on this subject at various times, we had quite a lengthy debate last session. At any rate we had such a debate as met the approval of hon. members opposite.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One full day.


Walter Edward Harris: One full day plus an hour and a half on another day, but that full day was on April 24, and we did not rise until May 14.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On that occasion we had only one item before us.


Walter Edward Harris: If my hon. friend wanted to debate longer than the seven or eight hours that he took I am sure that he could have done so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You did not call them again until the end of the session.


Walter Edward Harris: Then, sir, on June 28, 1951, we had two and a half hours, which seemed to be sufficient for hon. members, because we did not adjourn until two days later. However, this is only quibbling about detail. I am sure that if hon. members wished to debate this subject at greater length they would have done so.
May I make particular reference to many of the problems which have been raised, first by the hon. member for Kamloops and then the others. Each year we have a discussion about the Chinese, the negro and the East Indian cases which come before us, and each year we attempt to ascertain whether it would be desirable to extend the classes of those admissible in those groups. Each year we have cases brought to our attention which are borderline cases; but since I have been in charge of this department the numbers of Chinese citizens coming forward have steadily risen until the year before last they reached the figure of 2,300, I think, settling back to about 1,929 last year and at the moment they are running ahead of that again this year. There would, of course, be more if circumstances permitted them to come out of China, but for the information of hon. members may I say that it would appear that more of them are coming out of China now than were doing so a year ago.
I have not a brief to offer for the validity of the examination of these people by the X-ray method except to say that it has been in use for many years here, and it is not the only ground on which an applicant is refused entry. I have made that clear on other occasions on which I have spoken, and I have pointed out that if the X-ray is the only evidence we have that this person is not likely to be the person we are considering in the application the chances are that he would be admitted. As I believe hon. members know, we are using a variable rule of two years one way or another in the reading of that X-ray plate, and I am satisfied

that it is as reasonably accurate as any other method for the purpose we have in mind.
The Leader of the Opposition raised two cases and I propose to deal with them very briefly. The first case he mentioned happens to be before the courts and perhaps I ought to follow the course of wisdom which is traditional in this house and say very little more about it. I made that clear when I answered the question asked by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe on that very subject some weeks ago. I told him the case was before the courts and I was not in a position to make any comment. I think perhaps I could follow that course again today, though it is regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition sought to interpret the case in a manner which, with all due respect to him, does not bear very much resemblance to the facts.
The other case he raised concerned Mr. Harold Banks, and may I say again that this is one of those instances in which the assumptions may turn out to be incorrect. We have had some discussion in the house about this particular case, and I remember about May 8 or 10 the hon. member for Hamilton West asked me whether a board of inquiry had been ordered on this case. My answer was, "No". Had that question been asked any time within the last three weeks my answer would have been, "Yes, I ordered a board of inquiry for the purpose of obtaining the record as it is and as I suppose it to be before the officers charged with the responsibility of considering the admission or right to settle in Canada of this particular person." That board will meet in Montreal. It so happens that I am the person to whom an appeal can be made and I feel I should not discuss this case today either. I could perhaps talk about the facts but I do not think it would be fair to indicate any opinion since the facts, when presented to me, should be viewed at that time in a manner as free from previous opinions as it is possible to be.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Did I understand the minister to say whether a date had been set for the meeting of that board?


Walter Edward Harris: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Just like your immigration findings.


Walter Edward Harris: They are subject to review at the request of the person concerned when he learns about the conviction. One of these


persons whose name was disclosed in the return made to the hon. member for Winnipeg North has since that return was made forwarded me a decision of a French court dissolving the conviction against him on the ground that there was no evidence and restoring to him whatever rights he had before the interim conviction. Therefore my hon. friend will not take it for granted that in all these cases the circumstances were as they might have appeared in the original transcript of the judgment. Following his practice, I will not mention the names of those concerned.
The leader of the C.C.F. party also spoke of the desire that we might use a certain organization abroad; that is, one particular labour organization. We do, of course, employ or use the services of the intergovernmental committee for European migration, as we call it, for the handling of refugees. We feel that we should not have too many of these organizations because there might be overlapping. Since there is one central organization to deal with all refugees, we have followed the practice of supporting that organization since the war. I think we ought to continue to do so. Nevertheless, the organization referred to by his correspondent, namely, the international free trade union group in Brussels, will be considered in order to see what they could add to our knowledge on the subject of immigration and the proceedings under it.
The hon. member for York South raised the question of trade unionism with regard to immigrants and I think I have disposed of that matter. He also spoke of the problem of those British subjects in the West Indies and of the answer we are going to make to the brief which was presented by the negro association of Toronto. I can only make this answer at the moment, Mr. Chairman. Upon receiving the brief we studied it. I examined the statistics with regard to these persons and I found that there has been a steady increase in the numbers of negroes from the West Indies being admitted to Canada. If we leave the present regulations as they are for the time being I think the numbers will probably increase in any event and that we shall have what I would consider to be a reasonably fair representation of these people in the flow of immigrants to Canada. I could place before the house the shifting changes in the numbers but I can assure hon. members that they are on the increase. In addition to the close relative groups who come in in almost every case I should not say as of right but nevertheless almost so, we have a special merit case and we have been using it with respect to these people.

I think the hon. member for Kootenay West also spoke of a particularly offensive person whom he met on the coast. I would not want to defend conduct such as he has described.
I would only hope that this person who came from Germany would learn that however much he might like to ape the traditions of a regime that we hope has gone forever, those things are not wanted or desirable in Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is what I hope.


Walter Edward Harris: I have always taken the view -and I think it has been true of most hon. members-that service in the German army by a German national should not be held against him. That is his duty in time of war.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister apply that principle to the SS, the elite guard?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall come to that matter. I have taken the view that under those circumstances we may very well receive people who, with their military training and perhaps with a training of mind that we do not approve, might carry forward in peacetime certain undesirable characteristics; but that if the peacetime record of the person is good or, shall I say, not bad, the fact that he was in the German army should not be held against him.
The hon. member for Kamloops has asked me a direct question with respect to the SS troops. We have repeatedly had reports of former SS troopers being in Canada. Like some of these other stories that have been mentioned this afternoon, they crop up from time to time. There may be some people here who belonged to the SS. I do not know. We have never consciously admitted them. Yet I recognize the fact that you can deceive one of our immigration officers. You can deceive the screening group. You can deceive everybody and can get into Canada.
I want to make this one exception to what I have said. I think there is no reason why I should not make this clear. At one period in the war nationals of countries that were occupied by Germany were conscripted into the army and put into the SS divisions. I could give the reasons for that. It was that the German general staff did not want them in the German formations; at least that appears to have been the case. So when we obtain an application here from a close relative for the bringing forward of a relative who had served in these groups, we look at the record to find whether, in fact, he may have been a Roumanian or a Pole or from some of these other occupied countries, whether he was a volunteer or a conscript, the circumstances of his service and his whole personal record. But those cases are quite few in number. The general practice is that
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration anybody who has served in the SS troops is not welcome to this country.
I think the hon. member for St. Paul's made one general reference to some of our difficulties. I appreciated the friendly manner in which he acknowledged there were certain difficulties. I do not think the department overlooks the humanitarian aspect at all, but we are bound to refuse even close relative requests under the circumstances I have just mentioned. We do refuse such requests. It would therefore be easy to point to cases where very close relatives could not understand why they could not bring forward the one that they wanted to bring forward. At the same time we find it impossible to grant their requests.
The hon. member for Oxford referred to an incident in western Ontario last fall. He need not be surprised that I am aware of it. I read the newspapers just as he does and, I say with great respect, perhaps go a little further and have the department investigate the circumstances. I do not mean to cast any reflection on my hon. friend by what I have just said. It did happen that at one period there were a number of German and other farm workers who left their employment. This took place over a short time. The number was not large; I do not think it exceeded twenty. Coincidentally the story about the black car arose. I apologize for saying that there was no black car. What I meant was there was no black car of this nature.
One of these men was upset by his relatives who had happened to settle in Quebec and the following day he left. The impression got about that in the motorcar was a person who was going about soliciting people to leave their employment. We followed up the story and found in almost every case that those who had left were working, some in the brickyard at Cooksville and others in the city of Toronto. There was no recruiting for industries in the province of Quebec that we could find.
I only mention that to suggest that we do try to follow up these things in every way we can in order that these persons shall carry out the obligations they have undertaken. I think I have covered all the particular cases that have been raised.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked me to table a return showing Indian children attending non-Indian schools, and I should like to have permission to do that.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the minister leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
6828	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Harris: The table is as follows:



INDIAN CHILDREN ATTENDING

[Stage Direction]
-	I	ii	hi	rv	v	VI	VII	VIII	IX	X	XI
									2	2	
Nova Scotia	13	10	4	2	5	5	7	5	7	8	9New Brunswick	12	2	3	4	1	4	2	9	23	10	9Quebec	33	31	17	17	21	16	18	21	30	9	12Ontario	63	38	33	40	39	34	31	27	146	72	4969	36	42	26	11	10	5	1	1	3Saskatchewan	59	23	29	20	16	6	4	3	13	9	7Alberta	26	14	19	24	14	14	14	13	22	23	10British Columbia	208	167	179	177	136	132	135	96	141	61	3913	1	6	3	1	8	7	9	3	5	5	1	1	3	Outside Canada	2	3	3	4	3	2	4	4	3	3	Totals	506	332	344	320	251	229	221	178	389	201	138Indian Schools	8,443	4,542	4,021	3,336	2,711	2,122	1,447	908	371	151	82Grand Totals	8,949	4,874	4,365	3,656	2,962	2,351	1,668	1,086	760	352	220
Item agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: I understand that items 56 and 57 are carried but that the hon. member for Kamloops wanted to ask a question on item 57.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, item 58.
58. Citizenship branch, $697,031.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is one thing here which disturbs me a little. It has to do with the total amount asked for. If the minister will look at the details on page 130 he will understand the nature of my question. The details show that in the last fiscal year there was asked for in the estimates an amount of $615,464. A little further down the details show that the total actually spent in that fiscal year was $505,464, or exactly $110,000 less than was estimated. Yet this year the department is asking for $697,031, or $82,000 more than was estimated last year and $192,000 more than was spent last year. I am puzzled and concerned to know the reason why, although they spent last year less than they asked for, they are asking this year for more than they asked for last year, and $192,000 more than they actually spent.


Walter Edward Harris: The figure my hon. friend uses is an estimated figure which is made up in November before these estimates are submitted to treasury board, and that is why we feel that a certain margin is required here. It is one of those estimates that does vary a bit and I think he will find, if I may say so, that the Department of Citizenship
[The Chairman.]
and Immigration keeps its estimates down pretty close and has the reputation of being one of the three or four departments that have reduced their estimates on occasions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I must give the minister credit for that. I believe there are two or three items here where less is being asked for than was sought last year, but this seems to me to be a particularly outstanding case where your estimate was $110,000 more than you spent last year and yet you are asking for $82,000 more than you estimated last year. If the minister could tell us what was actually- spent last year and that the estimate of expenditures given in the details was considerably less than was actually spent then I could understand that the estimate might be larger this year. But I emphasize again that on the basis of what was actually spent up to December 31, plus what you estimated you would spend for the balance of the fiscal year, it is indicated that you would spend $505,000 during the year which is $110,000 less than you originally submitted in your estimates. Yet you are asking for $190,000 more than that.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend must remember that in the estimates for this fiscal year we are obliged to raise the pay of every one represented in the details because of the general increase last fall. In addition we have the normal increases in salaries because of the seniority attained.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration



PROVINCIAL AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

[Stage Direction]
UNIVERSITY	Law	Medi- cal	Normal school	Nurse training	Nurse aide	Com- mercial	Trades	Blind, Deaf, Dumb rehabili- tation auxiliary	TotalXII	XIII	1st yr.	2nd yr.	3rd yr.	4th yr.	1	1	62	3	2	824	4	1	1	892	4	1	1	3	15	19	15	28521	6	1	1	2	12	1	9	5	37	6671	3	5	2	3	2181	2	2	2	1963	1	3	3	5	3	21115	2	1	2	2	2	11	5	15	1,526241	433	34
48	8	3	8	1	1			9	28	6	47	38	75	3,381
40														28,174
														
88	8	3	8	1	1			9	28	6	47	38	75	31,555
James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is one item I should like to raise in that connection. I notice that you are up $50,000 on language texts for citizenship classes.


Walter Edward Harris: Has my hon. friend any objection to that or is he helping me out?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not quite sure. I just want to know more about it. It seems a rather steep rise. Are there so many more
classes requiring language texts that it is 50 per cent greater?


Walter Edward Harris: I could give a list of the books that are being published this year under this particular item. There are 16 of them, and they total $140,430. If my hon. friend wants to have them put on the record, I will do so.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: The list is as follows:
Language texts for citizenship classes to be printed for 1954-55
1.	Learning the English Language Book	I	
30,000	$10,8002.	Learning the English Language Book II	
30,000	10,8003.	Learning the English Language Book	III	
30,000	10,8004.	Learning the English Language Book	IV	
30,000	10,8005.	Workbook I for LEL	
30,000	13,5006.	Workbook II for LEL	
30,000	13,5007.	Workbook III for LEL	
30,000	13,5008.	Workbook IV for LEL	
30,000	13,5009.	English Through Pictures	
20,000	5,40010.	Workbook I ETP	
20,000	7,50011.	Workbook II ETP	
20,000	7,50012.	Teacher's Guides	
3,000	2,25013.	Je Parle Franeais Book I	
10,000	7,50014.	Je Parle Franeais Book II	
9,000	6,75015.	Je Parle Franeais Book III	
7,500	5,62516.	Workbooks for French Self-Taught	
1,500	705Total	$140,4306830	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Mr. MacLean:: There have been a great many interesting speeches today on the very important topics of citizenship and immigration, but I have got the impression that the accent was on the immigration side of things.
I think that the question of citizenship is extremely important too. It is not my intention to take up much time of the committee, but I should like to express certain opinions and make a suggestion to the minister.
It seems to me that if one looks back over the history of civilizations which existed before our own one finds that time proved that they did not have the permanency that their citizens imagined that they had. It is also the fact that most of these civilizations collapsed and were overrun, not because they were destroyed by conquest from without but simply because they rotted from within. These civilizations were developed by very energetic people who had a strong sense of purpose, who put up with hardships and who knew what they stood for, but after a few generations of soft living and a faltering of the ideals of their ancestors the then citizens shirked their responsibilities as far as their way of life was concerned, and it was only a matter of time until they were overrun.
I feel there is a danger of that happening to us. I have been shocked, particularly since entering public life, by the abysmal ignorance of large groups of Canadian citizens with regard to our system of civilization and government and their responsibilities in connection therewith. You will find this ignorance not only among the illiterate but among people who look upon themselves as being well educated and people who have quite a bit of formal education, high school graduates and even university graduates.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The hon. member should come to Newfoundland. We have a higher level there.


John Angus MacLean: I hope you are right. I am glad to hear the Secretary of State say that, and I hope that is not due to the fact that Newfoundland has only lately come into confederation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Secretary of State has only recently gone down to Newfoundland.


John Angus MacLean: I find, for instance, that many people who consider themselves fairly well educated have no knowledge as to the various fields of federal, provincial and municipal governments. For instance, they have no knowledge with respect to such a simple question as to what government is responsible for the upkeep of roads or other public works.


It is rather disheartening to realize the little value the average citizen places on his right to exercise his franchise. There are thousands of people in Canada who do not ever bother to vote, and in some cases the ones who do feel that they are doing someone a favour by casting their ballot; that it is something they must be coaxed into or pushed into or even bribed into doing. There are people who believe that the vote is a marketable asset which they try to sell to the highest bidder, if there are any around. I feel that is an unfortunate situation. If our system is to survive, I believe as much as possible should be done to educate, not only the new immigrants coming into the country but our own citizens whose people have been here for generations as to their responsibility. These people should be given an elementary knowledge of our system of government and the importance of the things for which it stands.
Only the other day most of the members of this committee had an opportunity of hearing General Gruenther speak. He said at that time that one of the greatest dangers to our western civilization was the fact that we seem in danger of losing the ideological war. Our western civilization does not seem to know for what it stands. He went on to say that it is not enough to be against communism, we must be for democracy. I agree with that 100 per cent.
I have been pleased to see some excellent booklets which the department put out a year or two ago in this regard. The series covers our land, our history, our government and so forth. I believe they are very good, although I think the particular title for "our government" would be more apt if it were "our system of government".


Walter Edward Harris: I assure the committee that was unconscious, and it will not be done again.


John Angus MacLean: I must say that these booklets are very good but they do not go far enough. I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. It would be money well spent if he were to sponsor a film or a series of films on these topics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member for Kamloops agree?
Mr. X^acLean: I believe he would, because if films are used for the right purpose it is money well spent. However, you can squander money in that way. There would not be perhaps any objection to a well made film or series of films on our system of government. There could be one on municipal government, provincial government and

federal government, and one on our system of justice. I feel that is another thing upon which many of our citizens are rather vague.
I have said that I do not want to take up too much time of the committee, but I would be pleased if the minister would give consideration to something along that line.


Daniel Roland Michener: Early in the session we amended the act and eliminated the first declaration of intention to become a citizen. Can the minister say whether that will result in some monetary saving in administration? If so, what will be that saving?


Walter Edward Harris: The forms which would be used for the current period had already been purchased but we will not be spending money for this purpose in the future. I do not believe there will be much of a saving on this particular item until the next fiscal year.


Mr. Montgomery:: I should like to ask the minister, in connection with item 58, about the language texts for citizenship classes, $140,000. Can the minister give me some information as to how that money was spent?


Walter Edward Harris: I just finished answering that question for the hon. member for Greenwood. I said I would put it on the record. May I at this moment say to the hon. member for Queens that since the 1949-50 fiscal year we have spent $62,360 on film strips, chiefly to be used in citizenship classes.
Since this reminds me of something the Leader of the Opposition said, I want to say something about the ethnic press. I am quite conscious of the support that was quite evident here today for the ethnic press who are doing their best to keep the newly arrived immigrants from embracing any doctrine that would be disadvantageous to Canada. As I have said on many occasions, we make it clear to these people when they come that the test that will be applied later on to their citizenship is their conduct in the meantime and their beliefs. Something over two years ago I met the ethnic press, and I believe the committee will realize one has to be careful in these matters, but we did set aside a sum of money for use in advertising through that press. We are continuing it this year, and will continue because the editors and publishers of those newspapers and periodicals deserve our support in refuting the false arguments that one could so easily fall into believing if he were not guided correctly.
I should like to table copies of a report, in English and in French, of the first national seminar on citizenship. I may say copies will be distributed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
26, 1954	6831
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Immigration branch-
59. Administration of the Immigration Act, $968,610.
Mr. Fulton I am not going to seek to revive the discussion we have already had, Mr. Chairman, but I could not let the matter stand without pointing out that, probably because of the pressure of time, of which the minister is now a victim as well as ourselves, the minister did not deal with the fundamental policy matters concerning immigration which were raised in the course of this discussion. The minister did not deal with the matter of the country of origin or the matter of the changing composition of present groups making up the 'total immigration, nor with the question of enlarging our effort in connection with immigration generally. I can only assume that is due to one of two things. Either the government has no policy in this regard or has not considered the matter in all its implications or else, as I have said is equally probably, the minister finds himself a victim of the shortage of time that is allotted for the discussion of these estimates. I believe it is regrettable that this department should be disposed of this year without any reply from the minister on these important points.
There are some questions I want to ask the minister on this item which provides for the administration to the Immigration Act. I come back to what was referred to in the course of general discussion, and that is the adminstrative practices in dealing with these immigration applications. If what I have to say appears critical I want to make it clear my criticism is not directed against the immigration officials in their capacity of administering this act. My criticism, although it may appear to be directed towards them, is based on the fact that there appears to be no directive or if there is any directive it is designed to direct them to deal with the matter along certain lines and to give certain answers or provide certain information which is, in my view, desirable to be provided. I do not regard that as an irresponsibility of the officials concerned; that seems to me to be a matter of policy which must, of course, come from the top. So what I am concerned with is the policy with respect to the administration of immigration.
I am aware that there are many complaints about which I alleged in a general way this morning, that when an application is rejected, it is most difficult, if not impossible, for the applicant himself or his representative-if he is represented by counsel-to obtain a clear-cut and concise statement of the reasons why the application was rejected.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
There are several aspects of the matter I would like to ask about. The minister will recall an announcement in the house in 1951 with respect to the children of Chinese-Canadian citizens in which it was indicated that the provisions would be relaxed whereby in the case of those over 21 and up to 25, where there was hardship or merit, there would be provision made for their entry. I wonder therefore if the minister could define that type of hardship, or the grounds of merit, relied upon to produce in certain cases permits for entry. We would like to know the lines of policy which are being followed. So far as I am concerned it would appear that one case is dealt with favourably and that another of a similar nature is refused.
As I say, the lack of reasons given for refusal makes it almost impossible to know whether to appeal or how to conduct the appeal. Would the minister say a word or two in describing the type of case where hardship or merit would apply, and give examples where these have been relied upon as justifiable admissions.
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, it must be obvious to the committee that as soon as 1 made the announcement almost every Chinese citizen in Canada who had a son in China over the age of 21 and under 25 made application for his admission to Canada. And, of course, that is an exaggerated statement because they are still coming in. Nevertheless we were faced with all the applications which could be sent in as a result of that. We had some question in our minds as to what precisely we could do by way of definition. And we finally left the definition just precisely as I indicated, that each case would have to be dealt with on its merits, realizing of course that the decisions might not be correct in some cases but that on the average they would be acceptable.
Perhaps the committee would be interested to know the number who have come in under this grouping. There have been 23 of the age of 21; 19 aged 22; 7 aged 23; 6 aged 24 and 10 aged 25 in the month of May of this year only. That is a representative month. The total is 65 in this group.
Now, if it happened that a son was well established in China, so far as we could decide, and if the father here had other children either to look after his business or to look after him in his old age, that would be the type of case that would not meet the definition of hardship. If on the other hand the father happened to be the sole proprietor of a business, if he was getting on in years

and had a son abroad of that age who could come forward and assist him, that could be a case where hardship would intervene. We would consider it a case of hardship and grant the request.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a question with respect to all cases of this kind, and immigration applications generally. Can the minister give an assurance that it will be laid down as a matter of policy that in these cases, except where it is a matter of security or political loyalty, a duly appointed representative of the applicant will be allowed to have access to the files and documents on which such refusal is based so that he will be able to prepare a case on appeal either to the minister or to an immigration appeal board, if one were set up or, if necessary, to a court? There has been occasion for a ruling of this kind. Many times counsel have had great difficulty in obtaining information upon which to base applications; and the same applies to members of parliament.


Walter Edward Harris: Is my hon. friend referring to Chinese cases, or is he making a general reference?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am referring particularly to the Chinese; but I would refer to it generally, because I think it covers a general situation.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think I can agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member. We have been through all this before. I know the representations which have been made to him presumably by the same persons who have seen me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Various people have been
making these representations.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree; but I was thinking of particular groups.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Chinese benevolent society and others.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. As the hon. member knows, we discussed this at some length- perhaps not this particular detail, but the over-all theory of immigration-when we were revising the Immigration Act two years ago. And all but one member in that committee-and I think this was endorsed by the house-held the view that immigration could not possibly become a matter of law, and we did not want to get into the system which obtains in some other countries whereby we would try to define in a law those persons who could be admitted to Canada, so that one could approach the courts in this country and have a judge decide in an action at law whether an applicant came within the terms of the law.

We went into that matter at some length, and indeed the minister brought it to the attention of the committee, pointing out that the discretion vested in the minister was so extensive that, as the Leader of the Opposition said today, the power was so great that "even the minister might not wish to exercise it."
Nevertheless the committee did decide that the theory of immigration in Canada must be that the minister would be responsible to parliament to explain the policy in detail, and his administration of it; and if the administration of the act and of the policy did not meet with the approval of hon. members, then the minister would be subjected to such criticism as members felt they should make. It was felt that we could not have these things going through our courts with decisions being made on the law.
Starting from that, it seems to me it would not be possible, nor would it be desirable for that matter, to disclose to the applicants information which is on the file in this department, and which would lead the minister and those under him to come to a conclusion in a particular case. I did not understand my hon. friend's concluding words, when he said that hon. members do not have access to these documents. I have never hesitated to offer a file to any member who asked for it, always knowing that, under his responsibility as a member of parliament, such member would consider it confidential. Yet at the same time I know the hon. member has in mind cases where, to the applicants, it would seem that if they knew the problem in the mind of the official they could meet such specialized objection by producing new evidence. I shall not attempt to make a joke of a serious matter, but I could say that we have people who come to our office and say, "I am so and so; what do I have to tell you in order to get into Canada?"
That is something we do not want to encourage. So that I think we ought to leave it the way it is. I grant you that quite probably members of parliament in particular should be given all the information available to enable them to criticize a minister of the government. But I do not think that we can have an applicant going outside the department and suing in the courts in an attempt to prove his right to enter Canada. As I say, the committee decided that should not be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister realizes of course that both the Supreme Court of Canada and the courts of British Columbia have lately laid it down that applicants for admission to Canada do have certain legal rights.
26. 1954
Supply

Citizenship and Immigration


Walter Edward Harris: No, they did not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, they did. And it was on the basis of Chinese who alleged that under the law they were Canadian citizens. They were applying for admission to Canada, and their admission had been refused by the departmental officials. The courts said that there is a legal right, and that this right is conferred upon them under Canadian legislation as it exists today. The departmental officials were ordered to review the decision that they had made, as a matter of law.
One of the cases involved the question of whether an adoption in China was legal, and whether our courts should recognize it and, if so, whether the immigration branch should recognize it and give effect to it on this application for admission to Canada. Therefore it is not correct to say, whatever may have been the intention when the committee had the Immigration Act before it, that there are no legal rights involved here.
Then, further, this applies, as I pointed out, not only to applications from these Chinese but it applies particularly where a deportation arises. I referred the committee this monring to the case where a judge of the Ontario supreme court felt it was inconsistent with standards of Canadian justice that the reasons for the deportation order should not be communicated to the person concerned so that her counsel could meet the case in court. I think, particularly in the case of deportation-


Walter Edward Harris: Would my hon. friend permit me?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -there must be the fullest disclosure.


Walter Edward Harris: I am not familiar with the case the hon. member referred to first about the adopted child. I must say that my former remarks would be subject to that. But referring to the other case the Supreme Court of Canada did not say anything about legal rights whatever except that the department should process the case. The difficulty there was that the application was sent in. The officer concerned wrote a letter saying that because of certain circumstances we cannot proceed with the application you filed. The supreme court said that is not so; you must proceed with it. They made no decision whatever on the merits of the case, recognizing I think that they did not have the authority to do so.
With respect to the case in Toronto, my hon. friend is taking advantage of me just as his leader did, because it is before the courts in Toronto. I can show him that file,
6834	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration and I am satisfied, even though he is making the speech, that he himself would do as I did and order the deportation of that person.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That may be so. Mr. Chairman, but my point is this. I am not discussing the case or the merits of the case, I am discussing what was said by the judge obiter dictum. He could see no reason why the reasons for the deportation should not be communicated.


Walter Edward Harris: If my hon. friend comes and looks at the file-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Good heavens, that indicates to me something which I find quite unacceptable, that the judges of our courts cannot be told the reasons for these things. The minister says he has adequate reasons, but that to me is perfectly unacceptable. Personally, the minister would have to do a great deal more arguing to satisfy me it was an acceptable proposition. I have a specific question to put before the committee with respect to the implications in these cases where the applicant urges Canadian citizenship. I have discussed this matter generally with the Chinese benevolent association, and it is my understanding that they are not really satisfied with the investigation that is made in Hong Kong. I do not want to be unfair to the officials there. They probably work under pressure and under difficult circumstances, but where these people claim and say that they can provide prima facie proof that they are in fact Canadian citizens by birth and have been back to China, then they should have the right to come here.
I understand they would not object to posting a bond or purchasing a return ticket. They should have the right to come here if their application is rejected and prove their case to the minister before a Canadian court. The minister, at least by inference, suggested that where there was a matter of law involved it might be regarded as a case not to be entirely at his discretion. There is a question of law involved as to whether this person is or is not a Canadian citizen. If they cannot prove that in court in Hong Kong, if they cannot assert their claim there, then I suggest it would be fair, and I think it would relieve the pressure on the department and might cut out a lot of correspondence, to have them come over here and submit their case to Canadian courts. Until they get the permission from the department they cannot make arrangements with the transportation company to bring them.
[Mr. Harris.!


Walter Edward Harris: I have just one word on that. We are in a rather awkward position on these cases. There are not very many of them. I know of only three or four at the moment. These are people who approach our officers in Hong Kong and say: "We are Canadian citizens." It happens that the immigration department has nothing to do about Canadian citizens. They have a right to enter Canada by law. We cannot bar them and do not. It is the responsibility of the Department of External Affairs to deal with Canadian citizens abroad who wish to come to Canada. Nevertheless, it happens, as a matter of convenience, that our senior officer in Hong Kong functions in this particular case for the Department of External Affairs. I recognize the difficulty that confronts a person who says: "I am a Canadian citizen" to prove it, and of the officer abroad who has the responsibility of making a decision. Representations have been made about this matter, and I have been considering it to see if I can find a way by which no Canadian citizen would be barred from re-entering Canada because of the lack of information which there may be at the port where he is, if there is such information available in Canada.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was glad to hear the minister say that the case of the children of Canadian citizens over 21 years of age- the father living alone in this country- would be given special consideration. That is the situation in many of these cases because of the fact that the families have been separated for years. I want to press the inquiry a little further, because I was of the understanding that the emphasis was just the other way; that if there were any members of the family remaining on the mainland, regardless of the situation of the father in Canada, that case would not be considered.


Walter Edward Harris: Will my hon. friend let me have the case he has in mind?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: One question arises from the letter I read. What instructions are given to our representatives in Europe at the moment? When they are giving a picture of the situation do they take into consideration the fact that employment is not as good as it was a year ago? Are there instructions to try to give the clearest picture they can of the actual problem?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. We try to keep abreast of conditions here and give our instructions to our officers abroad on a timely basis, and not too far behind conditions. If I remember correctly, I do not think there is any real

difficulty of an engineer getting employment in Canada. I would be surprised if that particular trade was one about which we had sent special instructions abroad. It may happen that this particular person has had the misfortune of not getting employment. I am sure our settlement officers will work overtime to get him another place as soon as possible.


Mr. Hamilton:: In answering questions of the hon. member for Kamloops regarding the inaccessibility of certain information on which decisions are based, the minister left one point which at least to my satisfaction was not answered. I would like it explained just a little bit. I am speaking of a person seeking entry into Canada who is refused permission to come in as an immigrant without having the grounds on which that refusal is based given to him. Because of the condition of records in Europe and in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe, and with all of the uncertainties that occur in an investigation such as that, it is quite conceivable that the information procured by the department may be wrong. I am not speaking of a particular case. I know of many where it could be argued, but I would rather speak in general terms. It is conceivable that the information procured by the department may be wrong, may be completely erroneous.
As I see it at the present time this almost star chamber attitude on this particular aspect of the problem means that a person has no opportunity whatsoever to go to the minister and his department and give them information in order to pursue the matter further and perhaps correct any errors which may have crept into the information they have. Can the minister explain how that happens?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure my hon. friend knows that we consider many cases six, seven and even eight times, and that the situation is not as simple as he makes it out to be. Indeed, far from there being a star chamber court of any kind, our officers abroad are there for the purpose of getting immigrants and not for preventing them coming to Canada, unless the circumstances are such that the people concerned are barred under the regulations. When we tell people they cannot come in there are not very many who get in touch with me and ask why. I seldom have appeals of this nature and I do not very often get letters except from members of parliament, and quite properly they write me and ask for an explanation. But I think in most cases the reason is usually fairly obvious and probably known to the disappointed applicant.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Nevertheless, I assure the hon. member that if a person has a good case and he is persistent about it we recognize that the information we have might be added to and other interpretations placed upon it so that the person who is rejected might very well convince us that he should be admitted.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Can the minister answer my question regarding the operations of the Welch company in Canada?


Walter Edward Harris: I forgot about that, Mr. Chairman. The Welch company is an independent contractor which builds railway projects and as such it is independent of the railways. My hon. friend this afternoon made some reference to the relationship between persons going from the Canadian National Railways to the Welch company. As I indicated about something else, this is news to me. The *Welch company is one of the few companies that accept contracts for the building of railways in remote areas and they are constantly asking us to provide immigrants because after checking with the national employment service they are unable to obtain labourers to go into these remote areas to work, and they contact the immigration office which supplies these people with immigrant workers. They pay wages which occasionally come under criticism in the press, but the wages are always within the standards set in each of the provinces in which this work is carried out and, in fact, in some cases I think they are fairly generous. We have had two or three complaints, one from Manitoba and one from British Columbia. We investigated both of them and we found that the conditions were not as outlined in the newspaper reports but were due to some exaggerated statements made by a discharged employee.
As far as I am concerned our relationship with the Welch company is a good one and we provide them with workers they could not otherwise obtain in order to carry out the work which I think helps the people of Canada generally.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister says they bring in workers for railway projects because workers cannot be found in Canada. But just a couple of days ago I received a protest from the trades and labour council of Fort William protesting against the fact that the Welch company had brought in a number of immigrants from Portugal while the people of Fort William, who were looking for the jobs these immigrants from Portugal were given, could not obtain work.


Walter Edward Harris: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that these are not maintenance workers on the railway. They are labourers carrying stones and other things about. They are not
6836	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration permanent railway workers but common day labourers and in every case before we bring these people in we check with the national employment service to find out if they can fulfil the requirements.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am encouraged by the minister's expansive mood to ask one further question on the point raised by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. I have been interested in -cases in which the grounds given for exclusion were marked confidential. Earlier in the discussion today the minister said that the circumstances of war are not weighted so heavily in considering applications for immigration, and by private inquiry I discovered that the grounds for exclusion are related to what was regarded as subversive activity during the war. May I take the liberty of placing this case before the minister?


Walter Edward Harris: By all means.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
62. To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for immigrants, including care en route and while awaiting employment, $500,000.
Mr. Bell:: I would like to ask the minister what obligations are placed upon an immigrant coming out under the assisted loan passage scheme to remain in his intended occupation.


Walter Edward Harris: We have had discussions every session on this matter on the estimates and my hon. friend could profitably read the past discussions. But briefly, if we loan him the money to come here he is obliged to remain in employment which we stipulated up to a period of 24 months depending on the time set for the repayment of the loan.


Thomas Miller Bell: I just want to make one comment in connection with that. I had a question on the order paper earlier this session asking about the plan, how much had been given out, and how much had been collected, and according to the answer I was pleased to note that something like 79 per cent had been collected. But I asked just how many remained at their stipulated jobs for the period intended and I received the answer that no statistics are maintained. I feel they could easily be gathered because in collecting the loan that has been made there must be some record kept as to where the cheques come from and I offer this as a suggestion. With the present criticism that seems to exist on some aspects of immigration generally I think we should definitely have a record available as to how many come out under the assisted plan and whether they


stay at their intended occupation for the stipulated periods. For all we know it may be just a blind or a ruse to bring out a certain group and they may leave after three or four months, even though the loan is paid back in 80 per cent of the cases.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend should not suggest that this government does anything for any motive other than that which it announces. The assisted passage loan scheme was announced by me some three years ago for a specific purpose and it received the endorsation of the house. In fact, I was congratulated for introducing it, and the only criticism there has been with respect to it is the question my hon. friend raises, namely, that the persons who come do not live up to their obligations. But no one in this house has yet suggested that we abandon a policy of that kind. Indeed I think they would prefer that this service be continued and that we continue our efforts to assist people in this way.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would like to make it clear that I was not criticizing the plan. I simply asked that figures be made available as to the number of those who remained in their intended occupations.


Walter Edward Harris: Until my hon. friend asked the question no one else did, and we have been trying to study the matter to see if we can get an answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare of Indians-
69. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $962,524.
Daniel Roland Michener: Has any figure been worked out on the total public expenditure per capita? There is a very substantial expenditure here of $18 million. In the Department of National Health and Welfare there is another $15 million for health services with respect to Indians and Eskimos. It would be interesting to have it if there is such a figure at hand. It would be interesting to know what it is per capita for the population.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not that figure, but I will get it for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Education-
73. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $3,824,200.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This morning the minister gave us a brief survey of the educational work being done in the department. He referred to arrangements with one of the municipalities for education of the Indian children in their schools. I should like to

ask him now with respect to the provision that is being made for education by. way of building Indian schools. It is a large item and I want to put my question in such a form that it will not take much time to answer it. Is it possible to give us a brief outline, of not more than a couple of minutes' duration, of the schools which are
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration being built and the increased student capacity which is being provided under the vote we are now discussing?


Walter Edward Harris: I could give the breakdown by provinces of the item under consideration. If the committee would give me permission to do so, I would put it on Hansard. It is as follows:
Indian Education-Ordinary Expenditure (includes Operation and Maintenance and New Construction) 1953-54
Province	Day schools	Residential schools	General	Total$ cts. 74,242 51 12,837 06 58,568 35 434,153 23 588,509 54 459,922 22 363,449 89 279,837 37 587,457 88	$ cts. 60,090 73	$ cts.	$ cts. 134,333 24 12,837 06 58,568 35 713,943 33 1,374,468 79 1,265,995 17 1,032,742 47 1,178,548 72 2,259,400 04 9,906 65 224,644 80 762,402 03 468,960 13 97,866 08 272,431 21 20,712 79
279,790 10 785,959 25 808,072 95 669,292 58 898,711 35 1,671,942 16		
				
				
				
				
				
			9,906 65	
	115,588 65 30,703 46	109,056 15 731,698 57		
				
Education of Indian children in non-Indian and			468,960 13 97,866 08	
				
	204,878 69 10,375 02	67,552 52 192 71		
			10,145 06	
				
	3,220,523 87	6,080,359 07	586,877 92	9,887,760 86


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am more particularly interested in the actual number of students accommodated than I am in the number of dollars being spent on schools.


Walter Edward Harris: This is based on the present day. Enrolment increased by 3,200 last year. We are almost keeping pace now. The backlog of, I think it was, 8,000 Indian children without school accommodation four years ago is now down to about 2,500.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How many do you expect to accommodate this year with this item? If the minister cannot give me that information now, perhaps he could send it to me later.


Walter Edward Harris: This year we hope to construct 69 classrooms.


Mr. Barnett:: I should like to ask the minister whether the breakdown, which he has indicated he is tabling, indicates the items of the various expenditures within the provinces?


Walter Edward Harris: No; it does not. However, I could give that information to my hon. friend. What he wants is with respect to British Columbia, I suppose.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister is putting that information on the record?


Walter Edward Harris: No. I will write to my hon.
friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Gallery of Canada-
75. Administration, operation and maintenance, including industrial design division, $252,185.
William McLean Hamilton: Has the minister any reason to believe that any of the paintings purchased by the national gallery have subsequently been found to be other than as originally represented or, in other words, to be forgeries in any way?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have one brief question, this being the last item. Has the minister considered the possibility of extending the service in the department of immigration? I know that the people here are very busy. There must be a great many requests from people trying to get information as to people who came to Canada some years ago, with reference to getting old age pension. It has been my experience-and I think it has been
6338	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that of most hon. members-that it takes a great deal of time to get this information. I was wondering whether there was some possibility of increasing the staff in that department.


Walter Edward Harris: I realize that our staff is sometimes shorthanded, but our records are improving daily. I do not think that now there is much in the way of delay with respect to landing records and similar information with respect to elderly people. At any rate, if there is, we shall be glad to hurry the matter along as quickly as we can.


William McLean Hamilton: When I asked the question before the minister shook his head, I know. I just wanted to put that on the record so that we would have it definitely indicated that there was an answer to the question.


An hon. Member:: Which way did he shake it, up or down?


William McLean Hamilton: He shook his head in a negative manner. There was a reason for asking the question.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to ask to what extent it is the policy of the national gallery to send collections of works of art to various parts of the country so that those people who, through various circumstances, are unable to come here, may have an opportunity to see some of these works in the original as well as in the reproduction?


Walter Edward Harris: There are two functions to the national gallery. The first is to maintain a gallery here. The second is to aid the provincial galleries by sending exhibitions to them as requested and as within the competence of the gallery here. As my hon. friend knows, the board of trustees are representative of all sections of the country. They are most anxious that exhibitions tour the country so that local galleries can show some of the paintings we have, if that is what my hon. friend had in mind. I assure him that the extension service is one of the most important parts of the gallery's work.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should just like to say that I would agree with the minister's last remark in particular. I think that the extension services are perhaps even more vitally important than are the services provided here in Ottawa. While I risk this comment being out of order at this late date, I would say that the matter of a national library, to my way of thinking, should perform the same function. If we are going to promote national interest and cultural interest in this country, I think we should be building up extension services rather than building up some super de luxe library and national gallery at the


capital. After all the main function of a public library is service to the public. I should simply like to express myself as being in favour of the extension of both services of that type.


Daniel Roland Michener: As a last question, I should like to ask the minister how he manages to know so much about his department, to lead the house and to answer as well the 16 or 17 letters that he probably receives from every member during the course of the session?


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to ask one other brief question of the minister who has, shall I say, the ultimate responsibility. After all, I suppose the ultimate responsibility for any department devolves upon the minister. But, with respect to item 76-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Is item 75 carried?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
76. Payment to the national gallery purchase account lor the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, $130,000.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am really helping things along here. Who has the responsibility for the choice of these various works of art? I need not tell the minister that of late there has been some criticism with regard to certain works of art that were purchased. There was some question as to whether they were value for the money expended. Is there a board or is the matter left to the officials of the national gallery or the head of the national gallery himself, or who does that sort of thing?


Walter Edward Harris: I know there has been criticism but I did not know there had been any criticism directed at the national gallery with respect to the works of art. One of my hon. friend's compatriots objected to the expenditure purely on the ground of economy. I do not think he objected to it on the ground of artistic value.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What does the minister mean by one of my compatriots?


Walter Edward Harris: To be exact, I meant the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: He is not a compatriot of mine.
An how. Member: Of the same party.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Let us call him a colleague or something like that, but not a "compatriot".

6S3S


Walter Edward Harris: I did not intend to use the
wrong word, Mr. Chairman. The purchase of works of art is undertaken for the gallery by the director himself together with his advisers, narrowing the field down and submitting alternatives to the board of trustees for the ultimate choice. It happens that the board of trustees in most cases are persons who are not only well informed on art matters generally but particularly well informed by in many cases having studied the collection concerned. It is true that the director consults the minister before he consults the board in the sense that he wishes to have my agreement with his plans, but I do not try to exercise any taste in the matter. I leave that to the board of trustees, and I am sure they are very competent to carry out the purchases.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would point out that this is a very narrow and specialized field and these works of art involve so much money that the purpose of my question was to be sure that the people involved were competent in this field not only on a narrow provincial or even national basis. Most of us are not competent to judge whether a picture is worth $100,000 or $300,000, and while I want to get the best works of art obtainable I am anxious to see that we do not have to pay huge sums on the supposition that these things are something particular when perhaps there might be more care exercised in such purchases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think it would be proper to let this item carry-


Mr. Abbott:: Who is going to have the last question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am trying to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of the attitude of the Minister of Finance and certain others over things which have been said before with respect to the time allowed for the discussion of this department, I want to make certain it will not be misunderstood or stated in future years that the house must have been satisfied with the time allowed because it carried all the items in this department before six o'clock. We are not satisfied with the time which has been available for the discussion of this department and I say, with all friendliness to the minister, that were it not for the fact that His Excellency is on the way to close the session we would be carrying on and would carry on for some considerable time, probably for another day, the discussion of the affairs of this department before it would have been adequately dealt with. I want it clearly on the record that we are terminating this discussion now because of
Ways and Means
arrangements which have been made for the closing of the session and only for that reason.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

["I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following\ncommunication:\nOttawa, June 26, 1954\nSir:\nI have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Mr. Justice Kerwin, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at six o'clock p.m. on the 26th June, 1954, for the purpose of proroguing the first session of the twenty-second parliament.\nI have the honour to be, sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nJ. F. Delaute,\nSecretary to the Governor General (Administrative)"]
Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955, the sums of $2,360,432,364.67 and $42,314,738, respectively, be granted cut of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 479, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1955.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following
communication:
Ottawa, June 26, 1954
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Mr. Justice Kerwin, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at six o'clock p.m. on the 26th June, 1954, for the purpose of proroguing the first session of the twenty-second parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be convenient to suspend this sitting until such time as we are informed that the other house has passed upon this bill which has now been adopted. It might be understood that when
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
the bell rings we will come back to our places here to receive the messenger from the other place.
Mr. Green:: It will only be a few minutes.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I imagine it will take quite a few minutes for the other place to give consideration to this bill. I know my experience has been that there are always some remarks made about the fact that they are required to consider a matter of such importance in a very short time. Therefore I would imagine that it would certainly not be possible for this house to resume its sitting before six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The sitting is suspended.
At 5.40 p.m. the sitting was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The sitting resumed at 6.15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might take the few minutes at our disposal to inform hon. members that because of the fact that the members of our staff have been working strenuously, especially in the last month, we have decided to give the usual three days bonus to our sessional employees.
We have also considered the week end which follows Confederation day. Hon. members will have noticed that July 1 falls on a Thursday and our permanent employees would have had to come back to work on Friday, July 2, and would be oil on July 3 and 4. We have, therefore, decided to give them the long week end from July 1 until Monday, July 5. I am sure all hon. members will approve.


Walter Edward Harris: On behalf of all members, Mr. Speaker, I think I should say what has been said many times during the session, that we appreciate the courtesy and care with which you attend to your duties, and the needs particularly of those who become embroiled in arguments on procedure. I am sure that the house has approved of your dignified, careful and efficient discharge of the duties of the office you hold.
May I also thank my hon. friends opposite for being so kind on many occasions in assisting me in arranging the business of the house. I wish to say that I agree with everything that has been said to the effect that the working of the house can be assisted materially by arrangements that are reached and which, in most cases, can be carried out with a certain amount of patience and diligence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to express thanks to the house leader for the great deal of trouble he has taken in trying to make the passing of the estimates as convenient as possible to those of us on this side.
As for you, Mr. Speaker, I think that I particularly should express this because you really have been very kind to me. We on this side do feel, with the greatest sincerity, that you have always tried to maintain the highest traditions of this house, including the tradition of strict impartiality.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to agree with all that has been said by the previous speakers, and to extend our appreciation for the courtesy extended by the leader of the house on many occasions, and our sincere affection for you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hansell:: I am about, Mr. Speaker, to give the shortest speech in history. We concur.


Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to say that these short speeches are sometimes very effective and very pleasant. I want to thank hon. members for their words of appreciation. I know that they are directed not only to myself but also to my deputy and the deputy chairman of committees-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: -as well as the Clerk of the House, the deputy clerk and the officials working under them, who have shown loyalty at all times and have given effective service to all hon. members. I thank all hon. members for their co-operation.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Francis Walsh.
An act for the relief of Hilda Anne Darke Marshall.
An act for the relief of Claude Raphael Sacchitelle.
An act for the relief of Isabel Mary Peebles Brown Macartney-Filgate.
An act for the relief of Wilfrid Lavoie.
An act for the relief of Joseph Edgar Emilien Landry.
An act for the relief of Joseph Victor Gerard Fontaine.

An act for the relief of Jeanne Robert Hotte.
An act for the relief of Heneault Champagne.
An act for the relief of Leopold Ruel.
An act to provide diplomatic and consular immunities for commonwealth representatives in Canada.
An act respecting the construction of lines of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from St. Felicien to Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to Beattyville, all in the province of Quebec, and from Hillsport on the main line of the Canadian National Railways to Manitouwadge lake, both in the province of Ontario.
An act respecting criminal law.
An act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An act to amend the National Harbours Board Act.
An act to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings).
An act respecting banks and banking.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1954, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act to incorporate Canadian Slovak League.
An act to provide for allowances for disabled persons.
An act to amend the Pipe Lines Act.
An act to repeal the National Physical Fitness Act.
An act to amend the Judges Act.
An act respecting benefits for members of the Canadan forces.
An act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
An act respecting extra-provincial motor vehicle transport.
An act to amend the Pension Act.
An act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act.
An act to amend the Veterans' Land Act.
An act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1955.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Deputy Governor General, did thereupon say:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks her loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the first session of the
Prorogation of Parliament twenty-second parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
As I bring the present session to a close, the political tension throughout the world is a grim reminder that the first concern of the government must be the maintenance of the necessary strength to deter aggression while we continue to strive for the establishment of peace in the world.
Our country is meeting every commitment we have made for our national defence and for international projects for relief, rehabilitation, technical assistance and the economic advancement of other peoples materially less fortunate than our own.
Our external trade continues at a high level. Although there is still in western Canada a huge volume of wheat resulting from three successive record crops, our grain exports continue to exceed the ten year average.
You have approved a trade agreement with Japan designed to assist in developing our growing trade with that country. Trade agreements have also been concluded, for the first time, with Spain and Portugal which, with improved arrangements with Italy and Brazil, should assist us in the recovery of historic markets in those countries.
In recognition of the growing importance of our northern territories, you enacted legislation establishing the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
We all rejoiced at the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which removed the last serious legal obstacle to the development of the St. Lawrence project and which now clears the way for actual construction of both the navigation facilities and the power installations.
The Pipe Lines Act was amended to give jurisdiction to the board of transport commissioners over all companies authorized to construct or operate interprovincial or international oil or gas pipe lines and most of the difficulties in the way of the building of a pipe line to transport natural gas from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec have been overcome.
You enacted a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to extend its lines in northern Quebec and northern Ontario.
The National Housing Act was revised and provision made to increase and broaden the supply of mortgage money so that more people with moderate incomes would be able to find facilities to assist them in building their own homes.
As required by law you made the decennial revision of the Bank Act at the present session and extended the charters of the eleven chartered banks for a period of ten years. Among the amendments made were those which permit a bank to make loans on the security of insured mortgages and to make small loans on the security of household goods and chattels. The Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act were also revised.
In further recognition of the services of Canada's veterans of two world wars and of Korea you have made amendments to the War Service Grants Act; the Veterans Land Act; and the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act; the Veterans Benefit Act; and the Pension Act.
You enacted a measure to provide for a federal contribution to the payment in co-operation with the provincial governments of pensions to disabled persons in need over the age of eighteen years. This legislation is a further instalment in the long-range social security program of the government.
During this session you completed the revision of the Criminal Code.
6342	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
To meet the situation created by the decision of the courts that extra-provincial highway transport was under the jurisdiction of this parliament, you enacted a measure to provide for the regulation in agreement with the provincial authorities of interprovincial and international highway transport by provincial agencies established to regulate highway transport within the several provinces.
Other measures which you enacted included: the Ontario-Manitoba Boundary Act 1953; the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act 1953; an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec; the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act; the Export and Import Permits Act; Fire Losses Replacement Account Act; the Canadian Forces Act 1954; an act respecting inventions by public servants; and an act to provide diplomatic and consular immunities for commonwealth representatives in Canada.
Amendments have been made to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; the Explosives Act; the Telegraphs Act; the National Parks Act; the Customs Act; the acts respecting the Northwest Territories; the Senate and House of Commons Act; the Salaries Act; the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; the Patent Act; the Post Office Act; the Export Credits Insurance Act; the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; the Department of Transport Act; the Radio Act; the Public Service Superannuation Act; the Judges Act; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; the Navigable Waters Protection Act; the Canadian Citizenship Act; the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act; the Research Council Act; the National Harbours Board Act; the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act; the Atomic Energy Control Act; the Excise Tax Act; the Excise Act; the act respecting the superannuation of government employees transferred to crown corporations; the Income Tax Act; and the Customs Tariff.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision which you have made for all essential services for the current fiscal year.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
In relieving you from attendance upon your parliamentary duties I pray that Divine Providence may guide and bless you.
This concluded the first session of the twenty-second parliament.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
56.	Departmental administration, $340,230.
[Stage Direction]
Citizenship-
57.	Citizenship registration branch, $221,654.
58.	Citizenship branch, $697,031.
Immigration branch-
59.	Administration of the Immigration Act, $968,610.
60. Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $10,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $5,691,266.
61. Field and inspectional service, abroad, $1,835,259.
62.	To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for immigrants, including care en route and while awaiting employment, $500,000.
Indian affairs branch-
63.	Administration, $427,964.
Indian agencies-
64.	Operation and maintenance, $2,239,261.
65.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $647,309.
Reserves and trusts-
66.	Operation and maintenance, $228,050.
67.	Acquisition of land, $10,000.
Welfare of Indians-
68.	Operation and maintenance, $1,936,950.
69.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $962,524.
70.	Grants to agricultural exhibitions and Indian fairs, $7,350.
71.	Fur conservation, $318,030.
Education-
72.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,401,323.
73.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $3,824,200.
74.	Grant to provide additional services to Indians of British Columbia, $100,000.
B-National gallery of Canada-
75.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including industrial design division, $252,185.
76.	Payment to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, $130,000.
National film board-
245.	Administration, production and distribution of films and other visual materials, $3,211,060.
246.	Construction or acquisition of equipment, $220,223.