1955-02-17

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the applause in which we have all joined will express to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) more eloquently than anything I can say how happy we are to see him back with us today and how gratified we are to see with our own eyes that this period of rest has restored him completely to his usual good health and his accustomed robust vigour.
On the first sitting day of this session of parliament I had the privilege of expressing, on behalf of all members of the house, our genuine feeling of sorrow that the hon. gentleman was prevented by illness from being with us at that time. Similarly today I think I express the feelings of all members of the house when I say that this is a happy occasion, and that we all rejoice that he was persuaded to take this necessary rest after the serious illness which overtook him some weeks ago.
We all realize the onerous nature of the responsibilities which fall upon the Leader of the Opposition under our parliamentary system. We all know of the hon. gentleman's strong sense of duty. We all realize that it must have been distressing to him to be obliged to be away from this house during that period. However, we all feel that he was wise in accepting the advice of his medical advisers. I can assure him that our respect for him has been increased by the way he carried out what was recommended as best to enable him to recover his usual good health and vigour in order to be able to discharge the duties of that high office.
It is not too frequently that we have the opportunity of expressing views that are genuinely unanimous in all quarters of the house, but this is one of those occasions. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we were gratified from time to time by the good news we heard of his progress toward complete recovery, and perhaps on no occasion more so than when the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) informed us on that
first sitting day that he had seen the hon. gentleman the previous day and could give us the assurance that the progress he was making was highly satisfactory. That was something that rejoiced us.
We are all now happy to see that the good wishes we asked Your Honour to convey to the hon. gentleman on that day have been fully realized, and to know that that period will probably be only a disagreeable memory. There may perhaps be some compensation in the fact that the hon. gentleman's illness gave us who feel honoured by his personal friendship the opportunity to express publicly our esteem for him and our admiration for the way in which he responds to his sense of duty to the public service.
Once again I can say, with the deep conviction that I am expressing the genuine feeling of every member of the house no matter where he sits, that we extend to the hon. gentleman our very best wishes and our hope, based upon what we see with our own eyes today, that he has fully recovered his health.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, although the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has spoken for all members of the house, may I be pardoned for just adding a word because I did not do so when the hon. gentleman's absence through illness was first referred to. I want to say that we are extremely glad to see him here. No doubt we shall hear that he is as well as he looks. Some people might think the House of Commons has been a more comfortable place during his absence. I am inclined to think that it will be a much more lively place now that he is back again.
On behalf of those associated with me and, I know, all other members of the house, I certainly join in saying how glad we are to see him back. The Prime Minister expressed our sentiments so well that I think there is nothing more for me to say.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the leader of this group, who happens to be indisposed today, I wish to add to the remarks of the Prime Minister and the leader of the C.C.F. the sentiments of the group which sits in this corner on the occasion of the return to this house of the Leader of the Opposition.

House of Commons
I think all members of parliament and individuals regard their responsibilities with some seriousness, but I have often thought the leaders of the various parties in the house have added responsibilities that sometimes must weigh quite heavily upon them. While very often we do not think alike, and we talk differently, and sometimes arguments in the house become pretty hot and heavy, yet when it is all boiled down I know that each and every one of us has a very high regard for his fellow members. On this occasion it gives us pleasure indeed to welcome back to the house the leader of the official opposition.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in many ways this is the most momentous occasion I have experienced since I entered this house. The words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and those uttered in support of what he said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) have touched me more than I can say. As the Prime Minister remarked, the occasions when unanimity can be expressed in the house are, under our democratic system, not so frequent. If I can assume that there is that measure of unanimity that has been indicated, certainly this is one of the happiest days of my life. I go so far as to say that I confidently feel that the sentiments that have been expressed in this way come from the hearts of members on both sides of the house.
From the time I was so unexpectedly taken out of circulation I have received consideration, kindness, messages of encouragement and those things that help to while away the rather lengthy hours in hospital not only from the members of my own party but from members in every part of the house. The letters I received will always be deeply impressed on my mind, because it was surprising to find the warmth of expression that came from so many where perhaps it might be least expected.
It was not only from members of the house that I received encouragement of this kind, but from people all over Canada. I received convincing evidence that those of us in the house who are performing public service to the best of our ability, no matter to what party we belong, are in the minds of the people of Canada, and that perhaps we are not so critically, regarded as sometimes may be thought. I received so many letters that I will always cherish, but I can hardly refrain from mentioning the fact that nearly every letter I received mentioned that not only the wishes but the prayers of those writing were with me.
I think one of the most deeply moving letters I received was from a boy of 11 whom

I have never met, but now that I have returned I intend to meet him. He wrote to me and said, "Dear Mr. Drew: I am writing to you because I also had meningitis. While I was in hospital my mother and father prayed for me and I know what prayers mean. I just want you to know that I am praying for you because I know how lonely it is in hospital." I need not tell you that when my wife read that letter to me in the hospital there were tears in our eyes. But that, I thought, was encouraging in more than a personal way because it did indicate exactly the extent to which so many people are concerned about the activities that we carry on here.
In expressing my appreciation to the members of the house it would be less than fitting if I did not express my very great appreciation to a friend of many long years, the Hon. Earl Rowe, who has carried on in my absence. Sometimes I do not obey orders very well. I am afraid my wife would be the first witness to that. But on this occasion I have done so, and actually until my return here he was the only member I saw because my instructions were to remove myself from political activities and the hurly-burly of the affairs that go on here. He performed the task-and I have naturally followed his performance in the daily press

with great ability, and with the devotion that for so many years he has shown to the public life of this country.
I know he would be the first to say that he would not wish to be singled out, because I recognize that, with him, I owe a very great debt of gratitude to the members of my party for the way in which they have carried on and assumed the burdens that my illness placed upon them. To all of them I am naturally deeply grateful, but to every one of you I wish to express my profound thanks for the kindness and courtesy you have shown. This is the first time during the numerous years I have served in municipal councils, a provincial legislature and here at Ottawa that I have been away for more than a few days, and I come back with a greater appreciation than ever before of what the House of Commons means and of what our associations in the House of Commons mean to every one of us.
May I say that the remarks made by the Prime Minister at the opening of the session and conveyed to me through you, Mr. Speaker, signalized that understanding that exists between all of us that under our system it is possible for us to respect the different

opinions we may hold about public affairs and retain warm personal friendships at the same time. There may be times when, ' jokingly or otherwise, some will say they would be glad to see me perhaps not quite so active as I have been, and remarks of that kind may be made quite naturally in the heat of debate on both sides of the house; but what the Prime Minister and other members have said today and what you have all conveyed in your many messages of sympathy and understanding is an expression of the great privilege we all have of serving in a parliament where there is freedom to disagree without any suggestion that we are imputing improper motives to those who hold different opinions from our own.
I cannot help but recall one letter in particular that I received from one of the ministers sitting opposite who, in wishing me good luck, said; "Do get back as soon as you can so you can lambaste us as vigorously as ever." Well, in case any of you might think the kindness that has been extended has muzzled me, I say this is one occasion on which I shall, without reservation, accept the advice that has been given from the other side.
May I, in expressing appreciation not only for the kindness and the advice, say with deep sincerity how grateful I am to the members of the press gallery for the consideration they have shown during the period that I have been away. It might not have been unnatural to have assumed very gloomy prospects for the outcome of my illness, but instead of that there has been kindness, consideration and a genuine expression of friendly good will which has helped very much in the very gratifying recovery that I have had from the illness from which I suffered. Perhaps just before I close these remarks I might say that I have had very convincing evidence of the excellence of our medical services here in Canada, and of the importance of these new and benign drugs that now mean so much to the health of all our people.
Again, Mr. Speaker, to you who extended on behalf of the members of the house the very generous resolution adopted here some time ago, and also to you personally as well as your wife for the flowers you were good enough to send to my wife and myself, and to every member in this house, may I simply say from the bottom of my heart, thank you every one.
Questions



COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosihern) presented the first report of the special committee on estimates, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 126, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


INCOME TAX


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have requests been received that trade union members be allowed to include payments into union strike funds in their trade union dues and thus be granted deductibility for such payments for income tax purposes?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	Has consideration been given to such requests? If so, what is the result of such consideration?
4.	Has consideration been given to allowing bona fide trade union members the right to deduct payments into strike funds as charitable donations for income tax purposes? If so, what is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	No.
2,	3, and 4. Answered by No. 1.



SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS, UNITED STATES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the federal government information as to rates of pension paid in the United States by the social security administration (a) to a retired worker 65 years of age or over; (b) to a retired worker and his wife both 65 years of age or over?
2.	If so. what are such rates of.pension in relation to the average monthly income of the worker during his working years?


Mr. Marlin:: The hon. gentleman, in these questions, asks about matters not having to do with this government but with the government of another country. While I would be glad to co-operate in any way in giving the hon. gentleman the information sought, I do submit it is not proper to ask these questions in this way. Any questions having to do with the operations of a particular department of the government of Canada are proper, but these questions have nothing to do with this government or this country.
Mr. jSpeaker: Answered.

Questions



CAMP GAGETOWN-HEATING

Mr. Purdy:: 1.	Are the heating specifications for Camp Gage-town so designed that without alterations only Minto coal can be used?
2.	If not, what other kinds of coal can be used to advantage?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	No.
2.	Any eastern Canadian coal or U.S. bituminous coal.



AIR TRAVEL, WINNIPEG-COPENHAGEN

Mr. Trainor:: Are negotiations being carried on at the present time with Scandinavian Airlines for reciprocal arrangements which would allow them to carry passengers between Winnipeg and Copenhagen?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: No.



JET PILOT TRAINING COST

Mr. Nicholson:: What is the estimated cost of training a pilot for jet aircraft in the Royal Canadian Air Force?


Mr. Blanchette:: It is estimated that it costs about $65,000 to train a pilot qualified to fly jet aircraft.



DUTY ON HARDWOOD IMPORTS

Mr. Hodgson:: How much duty was collected on hardwood lumber and hardwood flooring imported from the United States in each of the years, 1952, 1953 and 1954?


Mr. Dickey:: Duty collected on hardwood lumber imported into Canada from the United States: 1952, $4,856; 1953, $16,362; 1954, $6,629.
Duty collected on hardwood flooring imported into Canada from the United States: 1952, $202,661; 1953, $274,448; 1954, $309,400.



INSECTICIDES

Mr. Harrison:: What control does the Department of National Health and Welfare have in protecting the public from possible dangers to health in the use of new insecticides?


Mr. Robertson:: The Department of National Health and Welfare has control over the use of new insecticides under the Food and Drugs Act which specifies that food shall not be adulterated. In addition, the department acts in a technical advisory capacity to the Department of Agriculture with respect to administration of the health section of the Pest Control Products Act, assisting the administrators of the act in ensuring that insecticides registered under the act shall carry adequate

precautionary labelling. Insecticides are reviewed by the national health pesticide committee composed of members of the departments of national health and welfare and of agriculture set up for the purpose of coordinating the departmental work on insecticides. Data submitted by the manufacturer in support of claims made as to the safety with which products can be used is reviewed by specialist members of the committee and spot checking of validity of data is carried out in the government's laboratories. In its three years of operation, the committee has dealt with over 200 insecticidal products.



EGGS PURCHASED AND SOLD

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: 1.	How many cases of eggs were purchased by the agricultural prices support board in the year 1954?
2.	What prices were paid for these eggs and what was the total cost including storage?
3.	Were any of these eggs sold to private produce dealers? If so. what prices and what was the total amount realized from these sales?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	As at January 31, 1955, 107,022 cases of 30 dozen each of 1954 spring storage eggs, and 57,310 cases of 30 dozen each of 1954 December unoiled eggs.
2.	38 cents per dozen grade A large and 36 cents per dozen grade A medium for all 1954 eggs at storage points plus 5 cents per dozen for charges associated with storage in the case of spring storage eggs. Total cost, before any sales returns deducted, was $2,029,349.14.
3.	1954 spring storage eggs are being converted to melange for agricultural prices support board account. When the 1955 support program came into effect 1954 December eggs were offered and sold to trade on basis 37 cents per dozen grade A large and 33 cents per dozen grade A medium. Accounts not yet completed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Sluder:: 1.	How many pounds of (a) beef and veal, including fresh, canned and other forms; (b) pork, including fresh pork, bacons, hams, cured, smoked and canned; (c) mutton and lamb; (d) poultry, dressed and undressed; (e) cheese, have been exported from Canada each year from and including 1950?
2.	To what countries and of what dollar value in each case?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.


EGG IMPORTS
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Have any eggs, fresh, frozen or dried, been imported into Canada since January 1, 1950?
2.	If so, what quantities have been imported from each of the countries concerned?
3.	What was the dollar value of these imports?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES
Mr. Shaw:: 1.	What procedure is followed by each department of government and/or government agency or branch, when purchasing motor vehicles for its own use?
2.	Are all such vehicles serviced by the selling agency?
3.	If so, what is the method that is followed with respect to such servicing?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many administrative officers in the civil service, by departments, have been made permanent, year by year, since the first day of January, 1952, by passing civil service examinations for clerks grades 1 and 2A?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the suggestion made a couple of days ago by superior court Justice T. Rheaume of Montreal that the government, as he put it, should grant a favourable solution in the case of George Sylvestre Simmonds, will the government reconsider its position and permit this young man to stay in Canada?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I shall be very
pleased to reconsider this matter. As to what decision I shall reach after reconsideration, of course I cannot be expected to announce it until I reach it.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell the house how many provinces have signed the Disabled Persons Act agreement, and are there any provinces which have not passed enabling legislation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I am now in a position to reply. Agreements have been signed and completed with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Prince Edward Island. Allowances are now actually being paid under the disability program by New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Agreements have been signed with the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. These are now in our hands and are under consideration. We hope to have the agreements completed at an early date. Signed agreements have not yet been received from British Columbia, Newfoundland and Quebec.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulfon (Kamloops):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is it true, as is stated in a recent issue of the New York Daily Mirror, that United States military engineers are making secret surveys and mappings of Canada's coasts in connection with the joint defence effort; and, if this is so, why is Canada not undertaking the work herself?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the article to which the hon. member has referred. In the carrying out of joint defence projects, the arrangements as to who shall do any particular part of any joint project is by agreement. I presume that if in this case the Americans are doing surveying in certain quarters for certain purposes they would have our prior consent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Kamloops wish to ask a supplementary question?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence why it is considered necessary that these surveys and mappings should not be carried out by Canada, along her own coasts, rather than by the government of another country.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I said earlier, I have not seen the article, and I am not aware of the facts to which the hon. member refers. I will have to take what he has said as notice.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON TESTS OF BELGIAN RIFLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalf-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of this week's debate at Westminster, can the minister give the house a report as to the tests carried out in Canada on the Belgian FN rifle?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. While we have not reached a final decision on the adoption of the FN rifle, the Canadian army, as hon. members probably know, has been carrying out a series of extensive field trials which have given very encouraging results. We expect these tests will be completed in about two months.
In the meantime, production drawings have been converted from the metric to the inch system, and production details have been brought into line with North American practices. In other words we are taking such steps as we can, without making a major financial commitment, to prepare for the production of the rifle at an early date, if it is adopted.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the reported desire of Marshal Zhukov to visit the North American continent, is the government considering extending an invitation to him?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has not yet taken that into active consideration.


REPORTED DECISION BY GREAT BRITAIN TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN BOMB
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, arising out of an


announcement made by Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom today to the effect that the United Kingdom will now produce and develop the hydrogen bomb, as a deterrent against war. Was that one of the steps discussed at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference, and is the Prime Minister in a position to say what contribution Canada will make, if any, to that new development, which constitutes a change in defence technique?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Canada has made no commitment whatsoever in respect of the matter to which the hon. member refers. The hon. member knows that the discussions at the meetings of the commonwealth prime ministers were in camera. I have not seen the announcement made in the House of Commons at Westminster, and I would not feel at liberty at this time to say anything about a matter of that kind, as to whether or not it was discussed at the conference.
(Translation):


TELEVISION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue with regard to a request made by the people of the St. Maurice district for the building of a television relay station in their region.
Would the minister be so kind as to tell me (a) whether he has received any representations on this subject, and (b) what the C.B.C. intends to do in this connection?
(Text):


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. I have had it translated so I can understand it.
The first part deals with whether or not representations have been received relative to the installation by the C.B.C. of a T.V. relay station in the Three Rivers area. The answer is, of course, that we have had representations of that type made to us.
With reference to whether or not the C.B.C. is prepared to do anything about it, I might say that the present licensing policy of the C.B.C. would permit a licence for a private applicant in that particular area.
These relay stations are what are more commonly known in the trade as booster stations. They are not yet available, and these lower priced transmitters are not being built; but if a plan were developed requiring

them in volume, no doubt manufacturers could develop more economically. I might say that we had a similar request from a business organization in Yarmouth, N.S., and that the answer we made then was along similar lines to what I have already said.
But we would point out that in some places companies are being organized to establish good reception points and link them by wire to television receivers. This, however, is a private endeavour, and the C.B.C. has not participated in it. However, this matter is under constant study, and if or when we change policy with respect to it I shall make that known to the house.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister's attention been drawn to the situation where small acreages of Selkirk wheat have disqualified farmers from payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act? Can the minister state whether in all cases Selkirk wheat will not be a determining factor in deciding eligibility under that act?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: On two or three occasions at this session I have announced to the house that, prior to the seeding period of 1954, the government had distributed Selkirk wheat to quite a number of farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They distributed six bushels to farmers who seeded it on from two to three acres, and have grown crops from it. None of the crops grown as a result of that distribution has been allowed to influence in any way the decisions with regard to payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in those areas. In other words they are not allowed to prevent payment in the area because of that particular production. But I would not like to say there was no Selkirk wheat grown anywhere under any conditions that will not have to be considered when a decision on payments is being reached.



POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McBain (Elgin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Are any special representations being made to the government with respect to equalizing the tariff arrangement that 50433-79
Inquiries of the Ministry exists at the present time between Canada and the United States with respect to the import and export of dressed turkey and poultry products?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Minister of Finance has asked me to answer the question. I know of no representations that have been made, but I shall be glad to investigate the matter and advise hon. members.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because of last year's wet season and the unusual quantity of bitter potatoes grown, and since such potatoes may result in toxic poisoning, what action if any has the Department of National Health and Welfare taken to warn the general public?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman
gave me notice of his question the day before yesterday. In reply I may say that potatoes that are bitter are green in colour and may contain solanine. This solanine is an alkaloid and is normally present in potatoes in very small amounts. Unusual growing conditions may increase the amount of solanine to a dangerous level. Poisoning from the consumption of these potatoes has been reported, and this is being investigated.
If there are known to be any green potatoes or potatoes from which people have suffered illness, the matter should be reported either to the local food and drug inspector, or to the head office in Ottawa. Action will then be taken to have the dangerous material removed from the market and destroyed.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce? In view of the definite steps being taken by the United Kingdom to set up atomic power plants, will the minister comment on press reports which suggest that squabbles in the United States are having the effect of delaying action on Canada's extremely important peacetime atomic power program?

Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I can say definitely that no squabble in the United States is delaying the Canadian program. The Canadian program is being pressed forward actively, but Canada is in a little different position from the United Kingdom in that the cost of coal in this country is considerably less than in the United Kingdom, and we feel that we should not attempt to develop atomic power that will not be competitive in cost with power produced from coal. I expect the time is not far distant when we shall be able to announce a program to the House of Commons, but I am not ready to do it today.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he state when we may expect the government's decision on the choice between, one, the subsidization of a west-east natural gas pipe line or, two, redesigning of the pipe-line capital structure, route and markets to provide an economic project not requiring subsidization?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not in a position to give any definite answer to the hon. gentleman's question. When a decision has been reached it will be announced.

FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1953 WHEAT CROP On the orders of the day:


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister now say when the inventory in the wheat board account will be transferred so that the final payment for the 1953 wheat crop can be made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am unable to give the date at this time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister investigating the refusal earlier this week of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation IMr. Knowles.]
television authorities in Montreal to cooperate with police and citizens during the disappearance, leading to the death, of a two-year-old child?


James Joseph McCann: That is a matter I will have to bring before the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister state whether tenders have been accepted for a new public building in Kipling, and if so, when is construction expected to begin?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon.
member should wait until the estimates of the department are before the house.


Edward George McCullough: There
is some urgency in this, and it was promised on April 9 of last year.



ALLEGED SLOW PROGRESS IN CONSTRUCTION OF WINNIPEG POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Owen C. Trainor: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister care to offer an explanation of the limping progress on the construction of the Winnipeg post office?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Perhaps the construction company, which I understand is a responsible one, the Foundation Company of Canada, is in a better position to answer the question than I am. To the best of my knowledge the work is going ahead and all possible steps are being taken to expedite the work.

The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fulton.



IMMIGRATION

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before I begin my remarks I should like to be sure, sir, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) would not like to take advantage of this occasion to

start lambasting the government right away, because if he would I should be only too happy to yield.


George Alexander Drew: I shall have ample opportunity at a later occasion to take advantage of the offer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since this will probably be the last non-controversial thing I shall say in the next little while, perhaps, as the first speaker in the debate since the Leader of the Opposition returned to the house I might echo the feeling of pleasure that all of us have in seeing him back here, and echo also-perhaps there may be a little more controversy about this-the view expressed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that the house will be a livelier place now that the Leader of the Opposition is back here. If I may use a phrase which was once used in this house, and say it in a kindly way, I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I think we now all understand better the fable that, in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That fell with a thud.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


George Harris Hees: The minister had better stick to being a straight man.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) moved the vote of want of confidence in the government to which I am now replying he stated-I am not reading his exact words, but I think I am paraphrasing them exactly-that parliament year in and year out has had no chance to debate immigration; and he placed the blame for that circumstance on my predecessor, the present Minister of Finance. He stated, rather inaccurately, that over the years the present Minister of Finance had the responsibility for arranging the debates in this house.
As hon. members know, of course, that statement is not correct except for the first session of this parliament. Until that time the present Minister of Finance had no more responsibility for arranging the debates than any other member of the government. It seems to me it is perfectly obvious whose fault it is that the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration came at the end of the session, virtually every session.


An hon. Member:: On purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If there is any doubt about that, there cannot be any doubt that it would have been just as easy for the opposition, had they wanted to do so, to bring on a debate such as the one we are having now
Immigration
at any time in any previous session. Every session there have to be from ten to a dozen motions to go into supply, and when such motions are made it is open to any hon. member to move the kind of motion the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) now has before the house.
If there had been any real desire on the part of the opposition to have an early debate on immigration last year or the year before or the year before that it would have been perfectly easy for them to have had it on a supply motion.
Not only that, but last year 16 days or about 68 hours were consumed in the debate on the address. That was the first time I was present in the house when that debate took place. Practically every conceivable subject was discussed, and it would have been quite easy to have had a discussion on immigration at that time.
So I think all this time that has been taken in suggesting that there has been no opportunity in previous sessions to discuss immigration is a real waste of the time of parliament. I suggest that the real reason the Department of Citizenship and Immigration came up late in previous sessions was that members of the opposition knew very well that under my predecessor that department was well administered and there was no particular reason to bring on a debate.
I know that there is a very simple and obvious retort to that. I think perhaps the reason this subject has been brought up early in the present session is that the opposition feel that having a comparative novice as minister in place of a very experienced minister there may be more opportunity to make political capital this year than there was in previous sessions. The motion moved by the hon. member reads:
in the opinion of this house, the immigration policy of the government is not clear, consistent or co-ordinated; is not in conformity with the needs or the responsibilities of Canada; and in its administration denies simple justice to Canadians and non-Canadians alike.
There are three parts to that motion, and for obvious reasons I am going to deal with them in reverse order. I am going to deal first with the charge, and it is a charge, that the administration of the department denies simple justice to Canadians and non-Canadians alike. The hon. member for Kamloops in making his case for this proposition raised two points, and only two points, in support of it. He said there was a so-called mess in the department revealed at the bar meeting in Winnipeg. He said further that the department had ignored the decision of

Immigration
the Supreme Court of Canada in the Leong Ba Chai case and that that was evidence of the denial of justice to Canadians and non-Canadians alike.
I should like first to deal with the incident chat arose in Winnipeg. I may say that a number of hon. members on the other side expressed some surprise that I did not speak early in the debate. The principal reason I did not speak was that I had expected the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) to speak on this subject. So far as I know the hon. member for Prince Albert was the only member of this house who was actually present at the bar meeting in Winnipeg, at least he is the only member of whose presence I am aware.


Mr. Churchill:: I was there too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Prince Albert made his presence felt by certain utterances which found their way, correctly or incorrectly, into the press and one of which I have right here with me now. The hon. member for Prince Albert made a speech at Teulon, Manitoba, a place that both he and I had occasion to visit during the latter part of last year. On September 3 he was quoted by the Canadian Press, or reported-I want to be accurate about this

as having demanded a royal commission to investigate the activities of Canada's immigration department. The report says that his demand followed charges by the Canadian Bar Association subcommittee of shocking procedural practices in the department's overseas offices.
It seems to me that the hon. member, if he had personal knowledge of those shocking practices, would want to give them to the house and would also want to give the person who had to answer to this house an opportunity of replying to what he had to say. But the hon. gentleman has preferred not to do that. It was indicated to me that he did not intend to speak, at any rate until after I had something to say.
I am not really surprised by this. As a matter of fact, if I may say so without disrespect, I think it is rather characteristic of the hon. member for Prince Albert. I do not think there is an hon. member in this house who is quicker to hitch a lift on any political bandwagon that comes along than is the hon. member for Prince Albert. Of course it just so happens that over the years it has been too bad for him that so many of those conveyances that looked like bandwagons turned out to be political hearses.
If I may try to depict imaginatively what must have occurred or what seems to have

occurred to the hon. member for Prince Albert at Winnipeg, I would imagine that on that occasion he did not think he had found a bandwagon, but one of those three-wheeled war chariots that Queen Boadicea and her troops used to take into battle in the days when the Romans first came to Britain.


An hon. Member:: Two-wheeled.


William McLean Hamilton: They
had knives on the wheels.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The only trouble with this particular war chariot, whether three or twowheeled-this particular war chariot was supposed to have three wheels-is that the hon. member for Prince Albert found that one of the wheels was not there, and he also began to suspect that there were no spokes in the other two wheels. So with characteristic chivalry-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It sounds like your policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So with characteristic chivalry the hon. member for Prince Albert handed this broken down chariot over to the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). If I may change my metaphor a little before I mix it, like the Duke of Plazatoro, he preferred to lead his army from behind. I hope some of my colleagues and some of my friends are keeping their eyes on the hon. member for Prince Albert, for I would not be surprised that as night falls and the battle is practically over the hon. member will rush into the fray and try to dispatch any of his opponents who by that time happen to be unarmed.
If, in this debate, the hon. member for Prince Albert has shown more discretion than valour, it seems to me that the hon. member for Kamloops has shown more valour than discretion. But that is not uncharacteristic either. The hon. member for Kamloops demanded the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) because of his alleged failure to clean up the mess in the department over which he formerly presided. This demand as made is reported here in Hansard at page 1166. I do not think I shall bother to read it.


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: Spell it out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I shall
bother to read it unless the hon. gentleman wants me to do so. If he does, inasmuch as I have unlimited time and will have no hesitation about using it, I am quite prepared to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is about the only weapon you have.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let us wait and see. The reasons given, of course, for demanding this resignation were that there were these so-called shocking revelations in Winnipeg. When I read-at the time I came back from Newfoundland-about what was going on in Winnipeg, I must say quite frankly that I was a little bit surprised. The first thing I did when I arrived back in Ottawa was to get in touch with my hon. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). I discovered that he had not been in Winnipeg at all. I do not intend to say anything more about his position in the matter than this. He has in the most honourable way possible dissociated himself from this whole business with which he was not-in so far as there were any charges or anything of that sort-ever concerned. Beyond that I intend to let the hon. gentleman speak for himself as, to the knowledge of every member of the house, he is perfectly capable of doing.
This so-called report that was not acceptable to the Canadian Bar Association and that was sent back for further study I described in a press conference broadcast as being a perfectly innocuous document; and that is what it is. In order that hon. members who have not had the opportunity that I have had to read it may see how absolutely innocuous it is, I propose to read every word of it into the record. The copy I have here-and I am informed this is a copy of the document that was actually presented-is headed:
Canadian Bar Association Committee on civil liberties Subcommittee on immigration A. J. Cowan, Esq., O.B.E., M.C., Q.C.,
Chairman of the civil liberties committee,
Canadian Bar Association.
Dear Sir:
I have the honour to submit the 1953-54 report on the subcommittee-
I am sure this must mean "report of".
-on immigration.
2.	The terms of reference of the subcommittee as established at the 1952 meeting of the association are as follows:-
And this is in quotation marks.
"That a subcommittee on immigration be established to review the administration of immigration laws and regulations with particular reference to the curtailments of the rights of Canadians by immigration authorities and to report to the committee on civil liberties at the next annual meeting, the members of the subcommittee to be appointed by the chairman."
3.	The terms of reference of the subcommittee were further extended for a year at the 1953 meeting of the association and its membership continued to consist of John H. McDonald, of Ottawa, chairman; John H. Dickey, M.P. of Halifax; John R. Taylor, of Vancouver.
4.	Four meetings of the full committee were held in Ottawa and eight other meetings of two members of the committee were held in Ottawa and
Immigration
Montreal. A comprehensive brief was received from the British Columbia section of the Canadian Bar Association. The recommendations made in this report have been considered and are incorporated herein. In addition a great deal of valuable research work was undertaken by John R. Taylor, a member of the committee. Mr. Taylor has reviewed over two hundred specific cases and has written four comprehensive reports on administrative procedures. These reports have been invaluable to the subcommittee and will form the basis for further study and representations. Copies of these reports are being filed with the chairman of the committee on civil liberties. However, the committee and particularly Mr. Taylor, the author, believe that until such time as the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has had an opportunity of reviewing the detailed material contained in these reports, they should not be generally distributed.
5.	In its 1953 report, the committee recommended certain administrative reforms within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration itself and the creation of an immigration appeal board based on a judicial and legal concept.
6.	A copy of the 1953 report (P. 162 Vol. 36, C.B.A. proceedings) -
I have that in my hand, but I am not going to waste the time of the house in reading it unless someone asks me to do so, because it is the same kind of thing.
-was forwarded to the minister of citizenship and immigration and on June 30, 1954, the committee attended upon the minister and further recommended :
(a)	Possible codification of regulations issued by your department.
(b)	Publications of intradepartmental directives -particularly instructions to field officers as to the application of interpretation of the act.
(c)	The implementation of proper and legal appeal procedures as contemplated in the act and as recommended in this subcommittee's preliminary report last year.
(d)	The possibility of making departmental files available to applicants and their attorneys- possibly as handled by the patent office. (Excluding confidential material prepared and written by departmental officials but including all statements made by the appellant or any other person pertaining to the case).
(e)	The recognition of the role of barristers and solicitors in immigration law.
(f) The establishment of a procedure setting forth reasons for rejection in each case, in such a way as to give the rejected party or the applicant concerned an opportunity of overcoming the department's objections.
(g)	The committee's recommendations made in the 1953 report be implemented.
7.	On July 1, 1954, the then minister of citizenship and immigration, the Hon. Walter Harris, became Minister of Finance and the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill became Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However, the latter has been absent from Ottawa throughout the summer-
I plead guilty to that charge, Mr. Speaker; I was in Newfoundland.
-and indicated that he would request his predecessor, who has since July 1, 1954, been acting minister of citizenship and immigration, to continue to deal with this matter and the acting minister agreed to so do.
8.	Subsequently, at Mr. Harris' request, conversations were held with the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration. He indicated that the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the

Immigration
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill would appreciate the opportunity of reviewing the several recommendations of the subcommittee. The deputy minister also indicated that he would attend the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the association in Winnipeg and would be available to answer questions regarding immigration procedure which might be raised.
9.	Your subcommittee expresses regret that no action has been taken by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to implement any of the recommendations contained in its 1953 report. We recommend that the subcommittee be continued for a further year, that it be instructed to continue to examine the administration of immigration laws and regulations in accordance with its terms of reference, and to press for action by the department to bring into effect administrative and procedural reforms which will be in accordance with recommendations contained in previous reports of your subcommittee, recommendations in this report, and such further recommendations as may in the future appear to be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
John H. McDonald, Chairman.
53 Queen Street,
Ottawa,
27th August, 1954.
These are the "shocking revelations". If there is any member of this house who can find any kind of revelation in this document whatsoever, I should like him to make himself known. It is true that there are certain recommendations in it and that most of those recommendations have not been carried out. I do not think they could be carried out by any responsible person administering the act. But there is nothing in that document which, by any stretch of the imagination, can be called a revelation.
I know that something else happened at Winnipeg. I am quite well aware of that fact and I am not going to shirk dealing with it. The hon. member for Kamloops apparently agrees with me that this report is innocuous, because he really did not base his case on the report at all. He based his case on a newspaper report of a speech which was supposed to have been made by Mr. John H. McDonald, and on the unpublished summary of some cases which had been investigated, I presume, by Mr. Taylor. Now, Mr. McDonald is a politician. He is in fact a Liberal politician.


An hon. Member:: A bad one, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And I am one of those Liberals who, contrary to the views that seem to be held on the other side of the house, think even Liberals can make mistakes, and sometimes do. Moreover, I am a politician and a novice at politics, but I do know that it is an occupational hazard of politicians to make speeches, and ill-considered speeches at times. I do not think any member of the house with comparable experience knows that better than the hon. member for Kamloops. I do not think there is anything much more

to be said about Mr. McDonald's speech. At any rate, the contents, so far as I saw them reported in the newspapers, did not amount to much more than that. As to the summary prepared by Mr. Taylor-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely I am correct in assuming that Mr. McDonald has never modified or retracted anything he is reported to have said in that press conference?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really cannot say, sir. I have not attempted to find out. I come now to the summary of Mr. Taylor's cases, if indeed it was a summary of Mr. Taylor's cases, to which the hon. member for Kamloops referred. He did not identify his document and he did not quote from it either, I admit, but he said he had seen it. I have seen a document which I am informed was prepared by Mr. Taylor and which I assume is the same one. At any rate, I have read a summary of these cases which are supposed to reveal the shocking practices in the department. I would not care at all if it were published anywhere at any time, because I am sure most hon. members on both sides of the house, if they read it, would have the same impression I had. That was the impression that Mr. Taylor had been acting as an advocate before the department for a number of clients, that he had not been uniformly successful in his advocacy, and he did not like it.
All of us have that kind of experience at times, and if any hon. member wants to bring this document to the committee on estimates or anywhere else and discuss it in detail I am perfectly prepared to discuss it at any time I am given a few hours in which to refresh my memory as to the individual cases, because obviously I could not possibly carry the details in my mind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not like to interrupt, but I think perhaps on a question of privilege I should point out that I did not confine my criticism nor the cases I drew to the attention of the house to anything that may have been contained in a document alleged to have been prepared by Mr. Taylor. I think in fairness to Mr. Taylor it should be stated that my case does not depend for its justification on anything Mr. Taylor may have said. If it coincides with what Mr. Taylor may have said I am happy, but it was not based upon an alleged document prepared by Mr. Taylor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I listened pretty carefully the other day to what was

said by the hon. member for Kamloops. I reread, I admit rather hastily, his speech this morning; and I am unable to find, outside of the Ba Chai case, any other cases referred to except those contained in this summary. If it was not Mr. Taylor's summary to which the hon. member referred he will have other opportunities to refer to these cases again, but that is the only one I was able to find.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think they may be the same or very similar.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think they probably are similar, almost to the point of identity.


An hon. Member:: A strange coincidence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the hon. member for Kamloops does make a very much more serious charge when he charges that the department ignored a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Leong Ba Chai case. The position of the department and the minister in this case is set out just as briefly as I can set it out in a letter which I sent to Mr. Foon Sien, the president, I believe, of the Chinese benevolent association in Vancouver. As the letter was intended for publication if he wished to publish it, I think the simplest way I can inform the house of the position of the department and myself in this matter is to read the letter. It was written on the 30th December and reads:
Dear Mr. Foon Sien:
I duly received your letter of December 7, concerning the case of Leong Ba Chai. The application of Leong Hung Hing on behalf of Leong Ba Chai had been given consideration shortly after it had been filed on March 6, 1951. The settlement arrangements were found to be satisfactory. The application was refused, however, on the information given by the applicant that Leong Ba Chai was the child of a concubine.
Application was made before the supreme court of British Columbia on March 5,	1952, for a
mandamus directed to the Pacific district superintendent. The Supreme Court of Canada heard this case on December 8 and 9, and rendered its judgment on December 18, 1953.
The Supreme Court of Canada came to the conclusion that article 1065 of the civil code of China provided for legitimation by acknowledgment by the natural father: that where it was established that a child had been legitimated in China while his father had his domicile there, the law of Canada will recognize such child as legitimate within the meaning of order in council P.C. 2115; that, consequently, mandamus will lie directing the immigration officer concerned to determine whether the child otherwise complies with the provisions of the Immigration Act.
The immigration branch therefore proceeded with the application, and dealt with the case as though Leong Ba Chai, stated to be the son of a concubine, were a "child" within the meaning of P.C. 2115. Leong Hung Hing, the applicant, was examined in Vancouver in January, 1954, at which interview his solicitor, Mr. Anderson, was present.
After considering the report of this interview, the immigration superintendent at Hong Kong was
Immigration
requested to proceed with the case of Leong Ba Chai as an applicant for a visa and to interview him as soon as possible. Leong Ba Chai was examined in Hong Kong on April 22 and April 29. The reports were received in Ottawa early in May and in the course of this month the X-rays were studied by the immigration medical officers in Ottawa. The radiological examination could not be completed until further X-ray plates were received and it was not until July 21 that a final report was obtained.
On or about that date the immigration branch was furnished with letters written in Chinese that had been exchanged between Leong Hung Hing and his son. This correspondence, some 20 letters in all, had to be translated and studied in Ottawa. Thereafter, Leong Ba Chai was interviewed further and investigations were conducted in Hong Kong.
The minutes of all the interviews and of the investigations were under study in Ottawa with a view to preparing a complete and final report on this case when the news of the applicant's death reached Ottawa on November 30. Since the applicant has died, it is obvious that Leong Ba Chai cannot now be admitted as the child of a Canadian citizen who is in a position to receive and care for his dependent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is one of the most inhuman things I have ever heard of.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: May I ask a
question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Colin Cameron: Did the supreme court and the appeal court of British Columbia give precisely the same decision as the Supreme Court of Canada gave?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am unable to answer that question. I have not examined any judgment except the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada which, it seemed to me, was the only judgment that was relevant to the administration of the department. Of course in that respect I am in a somewhat better position than the hon. member for Kamloops confessed himself to be on Tuesday, when I asked him the direct question whether he had read the judgment and he admitted that he had not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I did not. I have read the judgment. I said I did not have it here with me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman like me to read the passage?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is what was said at page 1167 of Hansard for February 15.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. member the court's decision there?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I have not got the court's decision, but I have discussed it with counsel and I have a summary of it here.
I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. Any assumption I have made that the hon. gentleman did not read it or any imputation to that effect I withdraw unreservedly, sir.

Immigration
In his speech the hon. member raised what I regard as far and away the most important question that has been raised in this debate. As I want to be completely fair about this, because I think it is quite important that all of us understand it, I am going to ask the house to allow me to read what the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said. It seems to me this is the nub of the whole matter. If we are going to have any understanding of this very serious charge that the administration of this department denies simple justice to Canadians and non-Canadians alike, we must know what is the nature of the injustice.
This is what the hon. gentleman indicated himself, and I believe he may even feel I am quoting too much, but I want to get it fully on the record so it is fresh in the minds of all hon. members when I make my reply. I admit this is difficult material, and as the house knows I have a disadvantage in not having the learning of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Sinclair:: Which hon. gentleman?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Kamloops; I am not a member of the bar.


James Sinclair: That is no handicap. I
thought it was another handicap about which you were talking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Kamloops said at page 1164 of Hansard for February 15, 1955, in the second column, the last paragraph:
This party-
I presume he means the hon. gentlemen immediately opposite the government.
-is strongly of the view that you cannot base your practice, in a matter as important as this affecting the welfare of hundreds of thousands of Canadians individually as well as of the country generally, on the principle that there is no matter of right but only of discretion. The reason that we say that is that immigration does affect Canadian citizens.
Well, of course it affects Canadian citizens.
Canadian citizens have rights in spite of what this government may feel to the contrary. Under the Immigration Act and regulations there are laid down classes of admissible immigrants. It is provided that Canadian citizens can apply for the admission of relatives within those classes. It is therefore impossible to argue, or at least unrealistic to argue, that where a Canadian citizen applies for the admission of his relative within one of the admissible classes, no matter what may be the racial origin of that Canadian citizen-we are all the same as citizens-
I certainly agree with that sentiment.
-that Canadian citizen has no rights. He has rights. He has a right above all to know, if his relative is refused admission, why that should be.
I have not finished quoting this passage, but I want to make this interjection. I know

that may seem a most reasonable position to take; and when I argue, as I am going to argue, that it is not a proper position to take, then I am asking hon. members to accept a view which their first instinct might not lead them to accept. It is very important, therefore, that we get these things as straight as we possibly can.
I continue quoting from the top of page 1165:
He has a right to have his objections heard if he thinks that his rights have been overruled or disregarded by the departmental decision.
Then I interjected and asked the hon. member this question:
Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he cite the section of the Immigration Act on which he bases the argument he has just made?
The hon. member then went on:
I thought I might get that sort of question from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because he apparently does not believe that Canadian citizens have rights in general.
Of course that is not quite an accurate statement of my position. I know quite well that Canadian citizens have rights in general and rights in particular, and it was the rights in particular about which I was concerned. It was a question whether Canadian citizens had any rights in this particular matter and, if so, what they were. I am not a lawyer, and I do not know where else you would find these rights but in the relevant statute; I may be wrong.
He believes that it is necessary to lay down the rights of Canadian citizens by some statute before they have any rights.
In general, sir, when we are talking about legal rights, and that is all we are talking about here, not moral rights, under our system of government I suppose that is true. There are, as I am sure the hon. member would tell me if I did not interject it, certain common law rights. But apart from that, it seems to me we look to the statutes for these specific, particular rights. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we are here.
We proceed on the basis that a Canadian citizen has rights, one of them being access to the courts. Unless they are taken away from him by statute those rights exist and are capable of enforcement in the courts.
I do not know that that is of particular significance or relevant. Now I go on with what the hon. member for Kamloops had to say:
Therefore, when you say in the first place that immigration to Canada shall be permitted, and you then make a regulation saying that certain classes are admissible and provide that Canadian citizens can apply for the admission of relatives within that class, how can the minister argue that there is no right on the part of the Canadian citizen when he makes an application? That is the

implication of the minister's argument. It is a position which we entirely refute and refuse to accept.
Now, sir, what is the right of these Canadian citizens? What did the supreme court say it was in the Leong Ba Chai case? I feel that the hon. member will agree with me that the law now is what the supreme court says it is, though we may of course change it here if we want to change it.


John George Diefenbaker: Or evade it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe if the hon. gentleman would read this judgment again, as I am sure he has already, he would find there is a very simple remedy if it is evaded. I am not going to read the whole of this because I do not think I should try the house by doing so. I feel those passages I am going to read will set out the law.
First of all, the supreme court makes its decision on this point. I understand that the hon. member for Kamloops the other day took exception to my describing the mother of this person as a concubine. Instead, I will say she was the second wife while the first wife was living. At any rate the court had decided that if the alleged father had Chinese domicile at the time the child was born, under Canadian law he would be regarded as legitimate. Here is the relevant part of the judgment after that:
It naturally follows that the applicant, being the legitimate son, under 21 years of age, of a Chinese citizen,-
Now, it does not say of the particular person concerned; it says of a Chinese citizen:
-legally admitted to and resident in Canada, does not fall within the ban of the regulation, but may be admitted to the country, if he otherwise complies with the provisions of the Immigration Act.
In other words he is a person who is in an admissible class, and therefore a Canadian citizen certainly has this right as long as the law remains in its present state. He can apply for the entry of his child. But after the application is made, that person must satisfy all the other requirements that parliament has seen fit to lay down for the admission of an immigrant to Canada before he can be admitted. Then it goes on to say:
It is claimed by the appellants that a writ of mandamus does not lie, and that no order may be issued directing the immigration officer to consider the application for admission of Ba Chai into Canada as an immigrant. With this, I disagree.
And this is the learned judge speaking.
What is asked is not the admission-
Immigration
I would ask those hon. members who are interested to pay particular attention to these next two sentences:
What is asked is not the admission of Ba Chai into Canada, but the consideration of his application which must be examined in the light of the Immigration Act. This has been illegally denied.
As soon as this decision was made the department proceeded to deal with the application. I have already dealt with that matter in the letter I read to the house.
Then the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) raised another point. The second to last sentence of the judgment deals with that point, as to whether proceedings could be taken against an immigration officer if he did not carry out his duty. The learned judge said:
If he refuses to act and discharge that duty, he is amenable to the ordinary process of the courts.
So if the immigration officer did not carry out his duty, the decision of the supreme court has said that he can be haled into court for his failure to do so. So there is certainly a remedy there.
The position, therefore, as this judgment says, is that if a person belongs to an admissible class, as it is described under the Immigration Act or the regulations-one of those classes where it is laid down that a Canadian citizen or a Canadian resident may apply for the admission of that person-it is the duty of the department to process that application and reach a conclusion with respect to it. But nowhere in that judgment is there any suggestion that the judgment of any court should be substituted for the judgment of the responsible minister in the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a position with' which I think the hon. member for Kamloops readily agrees.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not agree with the position, but I agree with the minister's interpretation of the judgment. However, I do not agree with the position of the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That helps me, because I was going on into a field in which I felt more uncertainty than the field which I am now examining. In the passage I just read the hon. member for Kamloops almost but not quite said that the prospective immigrants themselves had certain rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I did not say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be that he did not
say that, exactly; but he said something close to it. Now, the correct position-
1246

Immigration


Edmund Davie Fulton: Read the passage where I said that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member does not wish to say it now, then that creates an area of agreement between us which I shall be glad to have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister should substantiate his point. He has said that I said certain things, and I have asked him to show me where I said them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I said that he almost, but not quite, said it. I think that was precisely the language I used, and I assure the hon. member that if I used any other phrase I shall apologize to him publicly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: More straw men.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, the reason I ventured to say this was perhaps a somewhat frivolous one, unbecoming to a minister. The hon. member for Kamloops, unlike myself, is a Rhodes scholar.


James Sinclair: What's wrong with that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, personally, sir, I do not think that is the greatest of the demerits of the hon. member for Kamloops. But I think the hon. member for Kamloops had better beware when he, a Rhodes scholar, suggests such things as rights that are not conferred by statute, general and unlimited rights. He had better keep a sharp eye on the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), or he will be accused of being a socialist, a centralizer or, even worse, an international banker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I doubt if the minister has ever heard of Magna Carta. Certainly if he has he pays no attention to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He used to teach history.


George Randolph Pearkes: He did not produce any Rhodes scholars, though.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And if the hon. member for Kamloops would like to edify the house by explaining the connection between Magna Carta and any possible legal rights an alien might have when entering Canada, I would be most interested to hear that piece of very original historical research.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can assure the minister that the hon. member for Prince Albert will be instructing the minister in due course on those points-points on which obviously he needs considerable instruction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall await that with interest. It seems to me the correct legal position in this matter-as a matter of fact, the correct position stated in very simple and non-legal language-has been stated by one

who, like me, was not a lawyer. This position was set out by Mr. Mackenzie King on May 1, 1947, in these words:
With regard to the selection of immigrants, much has been said about discrimination. X wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right" of an alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestic policy. Immigration is subject to the control of the parliament of Canada. This does not mean, however, that we should not seek to remove from our legislation discrimination which appears to be objectionable.
The proper legal position was well stated in the house on June 26 of last year by my predecessor, and I should like to read into the record what he said; because at that time the same point had been raised as is raised in this debate by the same hon. member opposite. I imagine the house will be rather more impressed by the opinion of my predecessor, with the experience he has had, than it would be by my opinion. I find this at page 6832 of Hansard for June 26, 1954:


Mr. 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 of 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-
The events to which he referred took place before I was a member of the house. I continue:
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,-
That was on June 26 last.
-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-
This is the former minister of citizenship and immigration, and I am only too happy to endorse his words.
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?"
Some hon. members may have read the article by Blair Fraser which appeared in a recent issue of Maclean9s magazine about the immigration office at Hong Kong; and this is no joke, as that article clearly shows. I continue:
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.
That is, an alien or a non-Canadian.
As I say, the committee decided that should not be done.
Both houses of parliament decided that should not be done, and it is the law that it should not be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While the minister is dealing with that point, would he care to deal with the question of the right of the Canadian citizen who has applied for the admission of a relative to go to court to establish the admissibility of the relative, and therefore the necessity of obtaining information as to why he was denied admission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I apprehend the law, I think it is perfectly clear that it is the right of the Canadian citizen to apply and to have that application decided by the minister in the final analysis, or by someone under the minister's control; and it is no more than that. That is exactly what the supreme court said it was in the plainest and most unmistakably clear language. If the hon. gentleman wants the act amended, he is a member of parliament just as I am and he can introduce a bill to amend it. If he can convince a majority of hon. members that it should be amended in that way, well, it will be amended. But I suspect that if the hon. gentleman were sitting on the treasury benches he would never introduce such an amendment.
50433-80J
Immigration
There are one or two other reasons which I want to give the house today, based on my own very limited experience in the department, in addition to these very compelling reasons which were given by the Minister of Finance when he was minister of citizenship and immigration last year. I realize the feeling people have that we ought to tell the Canadian citizen why some relative of his is not admissible under the act. That seems a most reasonable request to make. I am going to suggest that in addition to the reasons given by the minister there are a number of other reasons why this should not be done.
The information we get from an applicant for admission to Canada, the information we ask from anybody who applies to come to Canada, is extensive. We have to ask it because the act requires it, and because parliament decided this information should be asked for. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), who does not appear to be in her seat at the moment, although she was here a little while ago, was quite concerned that we did not ask enough questions of one particular immigrant. The number of questions we have to ask, prying into the private lives of these people, elicits information which I do not believe should ever be given to anybody else, no matter how close a relative he may be. It seems to me it is a serious enough disability for these people to be refused admission to Canada without giving other people, certainly solicitors, advocates and other people who may use the information in a different way, information about the private lives of people who we have decided are not in our opinion likely to be good Canadian citizens.
Hon. members know the kind of information that results in exclusion. For example, there is the question as to whether a person has ever been in an insane asylum, the question of whether there has been any criminal conviction, the question of whether he has had certain diseases.


William McLean Hamilton: What
about Banks?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Any time the hon. gentleman wants to make a speech about Mr. Banks and I have the right to reply, I shall be delighted to reply. But his remark is not very relevant to this general argument, this difficult argument that I am attempting to make at the moment.
There is of course, as every hon. member knows, another kind of inquiry that has to be made. Because of the state of the world it is considered desirable by the government, and it seems to be approved by parliament, that we should inquire whether those prospective immigrants are likely to be a danger

Immigration
to the security of the state. The only way information of any value can be obtained in most cases is from sources which are not within the control of the Canadian government. The information is made available to the Canadian government only because we undertake to keep it confidential. It would not be made available if we did not keep it confidential. That is not true in all these cases. In many cases it is a criminal conviction, previous insanity or some other defect in the person's record that is the reason for the refusal. But of course if we isolated all the other reasons and gave all of them, then we would be labelling the remainder as security cases and doing indirectly what we have undertaken not to do directly.
The other reason, which is of some importance, is this. Last year there were over 150,000 immigrants landed in this country. I cannot say, and I do not think anyone can say because you cannot tell when an application really becomes an application, how many persons approached our offices with a view to becoming immigrants, but it must have been three, four or five times that number.
Parliament is willing to vote only a certain amount of money for the administration of the Immigration Act. After all, the purpose of our Immigration Act is to get good immigrants into Canada and not to enter into complicated consideration of marginal cases. It would be utterly impossible to administer the Immigration Act with any funds that I can envisage parliament voting for the purpose if every case concerning a relative of someone in Canada was taken before the courts or before some kind of tribunal. That is a practical reason, but I admit that it is not quite of the same order of importance as the others I have mentioned. However, it is a limiting factor.
On the other hand, some of us have got into the habit of regarding these applications as being something like trials in court. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), while he did not go so far as to say they were trials, did say-I have looked over his words carefully but I do not think I shall read the passage, as I do not think he will quarrel with what I am going to say-or suggest, as reported at page 1170 of Hansard, that these people were being convicted without being heard, and if they could bring evidence a different judgment might be rendered.
I think that we ought to try to clear our minds of this wrong analogy with the courts. These people are not on trial at all in the sense that someone is on trial in a court. They are people who have applied for entry into this country, which we have a perfect

right to deny to anyone who is not a Canadian. I think a far better analogy, one which would make this whole process seem much more sensible and reasonable as it really is, would be an application for a position of trust, an application for membership in a club, an application for credit from a financial institution or, as the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) said in his speech on Tuesday, an application for admission to a family.
That is precisely what it is. These Canadian citizens are asking to have relatives of theirs, some members of their families, admitted into the larger Canadian family. We have to decide in some way or other whether they are suitable persons to admit. Parliament has decided that that must be done administratively and not by tribunals. If it is to be done administratively the final decision must rest with someone who is answerable to parliament here in parliament.
The hon. member for Kamloops admitted that immigration should be selective. He used that word, and I do not think there are many in his party who would quarrel with it. I think the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) came pretty close to saying that we should open the doors to anybody who wanted to come in, although at the same time he did not seem to be very much in favour of allowing anybody in. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. gentleman, and I would not really suggest that seriously as a summary of his speech, which did rather confuse me.
The hon. member for Kamloops admitted that immigration should be selective. I am one of those old-fashioned people like the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdon-nell), who like to look up the definition of words in a dictionary before he uses them. The hon. member in another context wanted to read me the definition of a word I had used in this house. I would have been only too happy to have had that done. I must say that I do not understand there is any real difference between the words selection and discrimination. They both mean the same thing.


Mr. Croll:: They sound different.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) says, they sound different. That is quite correct; they do sound different. Mr. Mackenzie King used to look in the dictionary and he was also a little old-fashioned. He used words accurately in his statement of May, 1947, when he said:
This does not mean, however, that we should not seek to remove from our legislation what may appear to be objectionable discrimination.

One of the features of our legislation to which strong objection has been taken on the ground of discrimination is the Chinese immigration act. This act seems to place persons from one particular country in an inferior category. The government has already initiated action for the repeal of that statute. Chinese residents of Canada who are not already Canadian citizens may now be naturalized. Once naturalized, they are permitted to bring their wives and unmarried children under 18 to join them in this country.
That age limit was later raised by this government to 21 years, and in exceptional cases of merit from 21 to 25 years. I think the house might like to know what has been the result of that policy. I had some statistics prepared the other day covering the period from May 1, 1947, because I anticipated the kind of observations which were made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway the other evening. I felt, as I generally do, pretty sympathetic to anything that was said by the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway. But I doubt if even he realizes how much has been accomplished under the new policy that was instituted in 1947.
There have been 16,600 new files established in the department since May 1, 1947. That does not mean there were only 16,600 applications, because some of those files related to more than one person. Approximately 15,000 applied to one or more persons. They have been checked, and at the present time the number of rejections is 1,217. I could give a further breakdown but I do not think it would add particularly to the argument at this time. I shall be glad to give that in the estimates committee where I hope to be very soon, if anyone is interested.
The total number of persons of the Chinese race admitted to Canada since May 1, 1947 is 11,404. It will be seen that there has been a considerable number, having regard to the number of persons of Chinese origin already in this country. I think hon. members should be reminded that since this policy was instituted on May 1, 1947, the government on the mainland of China has been supplanted by another government, and that during part of that period troops under the control of that other government were actually engaged in combat with Canadian troops in Korea. During that period the present de facto government of China has participated in this cold war. It must be evident to anyone that to have continued a policy as generous as this one has been in circumstances like that was a most exceptional thing to do. I think the Canadian people are to be commended for their willingness to see a policy of that sort continued during times like those when it might have been very easy to use the argument that for security reasons it should be abandoned.
Immigration
But we cannot abandon those security considerations and it would be wrong to do so. There is no doubt whatsoever that under this arrangement we have, we open the possibility of infiltrating, under the guise of relatives, people who are not relatives at all but who are being insinuated into this country not because any Chinese person in this country is disloyal to Canada but because he may be blackmailed. By people who know much more about these things than I do, I am advised that this is a real risk.
As hon. members know, we take virtually no immigrants from beyond the iron curtain in Europe. In other words, our policy so far as Chinese are concerned, if it is discriminatory, is discriminatory in a sense contrary to that which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) suggested the other day. It is discriminatory in favour of Chinese rather than against them. But be that as it may, security is a really serious problem, particularly in view of the difficulties of getting information and even vital statistics. It is a very difficult problem to carry out any kind of security checks on which reliance can be placed. That is the principal reason why it is necessary in these cases sometimes to take a long time and to go back and check and recheck when the circumstances seem to be extremely suspicious indeed, as they sometimes do in some of these cases.
I think I have said really all I want to say about that particular aspect of the subject, except that I want to express to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway appreciation of his personal vote of confidence in the minister. While we were being denounced by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) the other day because we had all this discretion and because we should not be trusted with it, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway later in the evening, as reported at page 1193 of Hansard, said this:
I believe that a certain discretionary power should be given the minister to deal with cases such as I have mentioned.-
He was there referring to grandchildren of Chinese and other similar cases of merit. -when he thinks the weight of evidence presented to him indicates that certain persons should be allowed to enter the country. I quite appreciate that this is a great deal of power to put in the hands of a minister, but I am sure no minister of immigration would misuse a power of that kind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We do not share his trust.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I should say "not willingly".

Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as discrimination is concerned, I am more concerned to see that there is no discrimination as between one person and another who is in this country, who has been admitted to this country, than I am about a certain limited discrimination among those whom we admit.
While I am on this subject, and having referred to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I appeal to hon. members on both sides of the house; I ask them if it has been their experience that the former minister or, for that matter, the present minister although he has not had much experience, has not on all occasions been willing to look at any kind of evidence that might make it possible for him to reach a more informed decision in these cases.
' The other day the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) said that I was a new minister and, like a new broom, he expected me to sweep the house clean. May I say that I do not believe in superfluous effort. The house that I entered on July 1 had already been swept and was quite clean, and there was no need to sweep it clean. When I suggested that, the hon. member jumped right to the opposite extreme and said, "Of course, the minister thinks everything is perfect". Of course the minister does not think anything of the kind. I am perfectly certain that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) made some mistakes when he was minister of citizenship and immigration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We certainly share that view.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am also certain that I have already made mistakes. But I do not believe that my hon. friend made any mistakes that were not honest mistakes of judgment. I do not believe any member of the house would say otherwise. What is more, Mr. Speaker, I have now been the minister of this department for seven months and I must say for the officials-and no one has criticized the officials, or anyone who has appeared to criticize them has said he was not doing so-that I have never encountered more conscientious, hard-working people who try harder to reach a proper judgment in these cases, with a leaning always to humanity but bearing in mind that their first duty in administering the Immigration Act is to get people who will be good Canadians and good citizens. I can say that my highest hope as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be to do as well as my predecessor has done. I know that I cannot do better.

There is one way in which one may perhaps test his administration in a rough but objective way. During the period when the Minister of Finance was minister of citizenship and immigration, he was responsible for permitting three-quarters of a million human beings to land in this country as immigrants. During that same time he found it necessary to deport fewer than 1,500 persons from among those landed immigrants. I do not think there are many members on either side of the house who think there are many people still in Canada who ought to have been deported. There may be a few. I know the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough) thinks there is one-


An hon. Member:: She is not alone.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -because she says so quite publicly. I think most Canadians feel as the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said, and I agree with most of what he said. As he said, I think most of the immigrants who have come to Canada-the vast majority of them- are good people who are going to be good Canadian citizens. I believe most Canadians think so too.
Before going on-


An hon. Member:: When are you going to stop?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman is convinced that he should vote for us and not for the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), I am quite prepared to stop. But if he is not so convinced, I am going to go on trying to convince him.


Mr. Brooks:: You are losing votes all the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I guess we are in for an all-day rain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is hard to satisfy some people in this house. I sat silent from 2.30 in the afternoon until ten o'clock at night the other day and was accused of failing in my duty in not enunciating the policy of the government.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You are
doing a lot of squirming.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, hon. gentlemen asked for it and they are going to get it.


Joseph Warner Murphy: We have not had it yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I realize that this may never happen again in my parliamentary career, but for once I have unlimited time and I am going to make the same kind of use of it that is from time to time made by hon. members on the front benches opposite, but I hope to better effect.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is your own opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing I am stating is anyone else's opinion. All my opinions are my own.


An hon. Member:: Thank the Lord for that.


An hon. Member:: Does not the rest of the cabinet even agree with you?


Joseph Warner Murphy: That is
cabinet solidarity, is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I am going to deal with that too. I am not going to dodge any of these things.


Mr. Herridge:: Is the minister not enunciating government policy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Most assuredly. I have the responsibility in this field for the enunciation of policy. It is not my exclusive function to make the policy but once it is made I speak for the government in this field as long as I remain in the government.


An hon. Member:: That may not be long.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do I understand from the minister's remarks that his opinions constitute the policy of the government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir. I am sure the hon. member is far too intelligent and well instructed not to be able to make a clear distinction between an opinion and a policy. I express opinions on many subjects, sometimes indiscreetly, which are none of my business at all, and being the kind of person I am, I am afraid I am apt to go on doing that.
As I started to say before I was interrupted by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), before going on to deal with the second part of the want of confidence motion I want to deal very briefly-


Joseph Warner Murphy: Good.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -with certain other points regarding the administration of the department. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) suggest, and to find the suggestion echoed in rather mild fashion by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) who talked very good sense most of the time in his speech, that immigrants were treated like cattle or in too military a fashion. I think that is an approximation to the phrase used by the hon. member for Red Deer. I do not think I need to say very much about that because it seemed to me that the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) put the matter pretty well in his reply. But I do want to say that I went to Halifax myself
Immigration
and had the good fortune to be there at a time when an Italian ship arrived. I saw the way that immigrants were treated there. Both the hon. members for Halifax were with me at the time, and I was very proud indeed to be told by the purser of that ship, after the landing of these people had been completed, that among all the places where he had called there was no place where people were treated with the same kind of consideration that they were here in Canada.
Of course some hon. members opposite may think I am biased in this matter, although I personally have almost nothing to do with these things. They are done by the officials of the department and they and the officials of other departments are very like other Canadians. There are a few of them who are objectionable but the great majority of them are very considerate of their fellow men, no matter where they come from. Now, sir, I am not going to read this, if hon. members are getting frightened-


Mr. Cardiff:: Read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but somebody did send me the day before yesterday a copy of the February 11 issue of the Canada Weekly Review which is published in London by a gentleman named Thomson who, I believe, is not notoriously a supporter of the government. I would commend to any hon. members who might be interested in an article entitled, "Welcome Waiting in Montreal at Busy Immigration Department Headquarters". It is not uncomplimentary.
I do not think the hon. member for Red Deer really meant it as censure of the department but he did raise some question-and I think the matter was raised by one or two other hon. members-that sometimes there was misrepresentation of conditions in Canada by officials of the immigration department abroad. Of course, you know, it is very hard not to have some charges of this sort because this is, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will agree, a matter of opinion up to a point. It is not quite susceptible to purely objective treatment.
Even our officials vary in their views as to what conditions are like in Canada and what is going to happen to an immigrant when he comes here. I may say that one of the first complaints that came to me after I became the minister was that some official of the immigration department in London or somewhere in the United Kingdom had said that conditions in Newfoundland were unsuitable for immigrants. I have been trying to find that official ever since but so far I have not found him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After all, you are exhibit No. 1.

Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: There may be something in what the hon. gentleman says.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: More truth than fiction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) referred to a ship called the Beaverbrae and something that he had heard had happened on the Beaverbrae a number of years ago.


An hon. Member:: He was not too sure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not too sure there may not have been something in what he said. At any rate, I will be only too happy to have the whole thing investigated. I do not think anything comparable with that is going on at the present time. If there is, I would certainly like to know about it and if I find it I will be the first to admit it. It may well be that the subject is worth investigating, and if the hon. member can give me any particulars to help to investigate it more completely I will be very glad to do it.
I should also like to say a word or two about the questions of relief and health services which were raised by the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). There is no doubt that it is a difficult problem. Of course, as all hon. members know, it is the policy of the department to provide for unemployed immigrants and their families for the first year they are in Canada, so that the problem does not arise at all during the first year. Then we have agreements for health care with seven of the ten provinces which can extend to as long as two years.
But there is in the act this very controversial provision that a person who becomes a public charge can be deported. I know there is a good deal of feeling on both sides of the house about the wisdom of having that provision in the act. I cannot take it out, but parliament can. I am not absolutely convinced that it would be a wise thing to take it out, although I am not terribly proud of having it there. Hon. members know that one of the reasons why it is there is that it was represented to us that if it were not there then in certain provinces and certain localities the entry of immigrants would be actively discouraged, and that on balance it is apt to make the flow of immigration greater than otherwise. But I must say that of all the things that are in the act it is the thing that I am least happy about, and I confess that quite frankly.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Would the minister permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not know whether the minister has discussed this matter with the
[Mr. Knowles.!
Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), but with respect to people who become unemployed a short time after they have arrived in Canada is there any provision for assistance through the Department of Labour in the nature of unemployment insurance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, assistance is given directly by my department for the first year. It is true, I believe, that the Department of Labour had a hostel at Ajax and it has one at St. Paul l'Ermite, but that is an activity that was associated with those large-scale movements with which the Department of Labour was concerned at one time. This activity is diminishing and virtually the whole job is done now by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Of course, no person who becomes unemployed in the first year is ever regarded as being a public charge and deported. It is when that condition arises later on that action is taken.
I am not going to name names or constituencies but I would say, sir, that the only members who have written to me to suggest that any person should be deported because of becoming a public charge were certain hon. members of the official opposition. I think perhaps before the opposition expresses too strong views on this subject they should have a caucus on it. But there again, sir, I am not minding my own business.
I come now to part 2 of the hon. member's motion. If the hon. member wishes to withdraw part 2 and part 1 of his motion, I am quite prepared to sit down right now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Getting tired?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it he is not. Part 2 of his motion is to the effect that the immigration policy is not in conformity with the needs or responsibilities of Canada. Now, what are the needs of Canada? The hon. member for Kamloops said that the needs of the country for more people are undisputed. Well, if they are undisputed it would appear that we on this side recognize it just as much as anyone on the other side does. The hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) both said immigration did not adversely affect the prospects for employment. The hon. member for Eglinton paid the department the compliment of reading a lot of departmental literature into the record to show where he had obtained the idea. I am glad there are some people in the country, and in the house, who do share the views held by the department and by the government that immigration, within the absorptive capacity of our economy, does not adversely affect employment but does tend to stimulate employment.

At the same time we do recognize it is desirable, so far as is humanly possible, to time the immigration so that the highest degree of influx coincides with the highest degree of opportunity seasonally for employment, not with the lowest. Most hon. members who commented on this aspect agreed with it.
The only conclusion I could reach after rereading the speech of the hon. member for Kamloops was that this part of his motion was based on one phrase, and not entirely an original phrase. It was the one phrase in his speech which got headlines in one of the newspapers. He talked about the government's planning for a little Canada, and said it was to be strongly condemned. I suppose that means, I do not want to be unfair, that we have not brought in enough immigrants; that there should have been more.
What are the facts? Now, the new post-war immigration policy was inaugurated on May 1, 1947, as I have reminded hon. members several times today. At that date the population of Canada was about 12 million. Seven years later the population of this country is 15 million, a 25 per cent increase. It is true there is an element in those figures that I ought to mention. During that period, at midnight on March 31, 1949, we admitted about a third of a million additional new citizens at one stroke. But even making allowance for the addition of the Newfoundlanders, it is a very rapid rate of growth indeed. I question very much whether it could have been much faster. There may have been periods when it could have been a bit faster, but there have been other periods when it might have been better if, in some categories, it had been slowed down a little sooner. You cannot gauge these things accurately. On the whole, I doubt if there could have been a very much more rapid increase than that.
The hon. member for Kamloops said we were neglecting British immigration. I do not suppose he expected anyone in the house to take that seriously. I imagine that was one of the things all of us sometimes permit ourselves to say for consumption elsewhere than in this house. As the hon. member knows, and as I am sure every hon. member knows, there is no country overseas from which it is easier to come to Canada than the United Kingdom. We have fewer formalities, speedier procedures and many more officers and officials there than anywhere else. We do carry on there what we are unable to do in very many countries, and that is an active promotional campaign. Apparently the campaign is so active that
Immigration
sometimes the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) finds people who feel we are encouraging too many people to come to Canada by telling them it is too attractive a country.
I believe the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) indicated that not only were we doing everything we could to encourage immigration from the United Kingdom, but that we were getting, on the whole, good results.
Then the hon. member for Eglinton came and put on his fiercest bulldog expression, and he barked at the house. When I first came-


Joseph Warner Murphy: He did not
bray.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I first came to the house, I used to be a little frightened by the hon. gentleman's bark. But when I found that practically all his bark was a commendation of the immigration policy and of the results achieved, I felt all I could do was express appreciation of most of what he said.


Mr. Dufresne:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe the hon. gentleman has a right to say that a member of this house is barking. I believe that expression should be withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I said anything offensive to anyone, I withdraw it unreservedly.
I want to go on, sir, to the third part of the motion, which is really the first part. I repeat my offer to the hon. member for Kamloops; if he wants to withdraw part 1 of his motion, I will sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have no intention of withdrawing anything. It is even weightier than I had realized.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Apparently the reason why the immigration policy of the government is not clear, consistent or co-ordinated is that on January 28, I believe it was, in a newspaper-and I did not check these dates -I am supposed to have said one thing at a meeting in Ottawa West, and my right hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is supposed to have said something that differed in some way from what I said. His statement was made at Winnipeg.
Well, now, there is quite a difference between me and the Minister of Agriculture.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But you are both long-winded.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Agriculture has been a politician for 40 years, and in all that time he has always expressed himself in a bold and forthright fashion. I, sir,

Immigration
spent 16 years in the shelter of the civil service, and my natural mode of expression is timid and careful.
The fear I expressed the other day at that meeting in Ottawa West was not the fear that our absorptive capacity was declining, because I do not think it is. Rather, the fear I expressed was that it was going to be more difficult to find suitable immigrants to come to Canada than it had been. And that, of course, is true. The economic conditions have improved so greatly in western Europe in the last two years that the economic inducement of people to migrate is very much less than it was.
In consequence of this I recognize, and I think the house must recognize, that it is going to be a good deal more difficult to get the people we would most like to get, because we think they would fit best into the kind of society we have, and the kind we want to continue to have. If that is differing from the Minister of Agriculture, who wants more people to come, then I do not understand differences at all. The Minister of Agriculture may have a more optimistic attitude than I have as to how many people could come in a certain year. Indeed, I think it would be very unlikely that any two members on the treasury bench would agree exactly on a subject of that sort-which, after all, is only a matter of opinion.
But we both agree that Canada can absorb immigrants; and we both agree we want to increase the population of this country through the right kind of immigration. And I do not think any small differences between us amount to a row of pins.
Now, if you want a really clear and forthright detailed blueprint for immigration to this country, here it is! I took the trouble to get a copy of the resolution adopted by the national convention of the Progressive Conservative party on September 30 and October 1 and 2 of 1948. Here is their resolution on immigration. Here is their clear, consistent, co-ordinated policy!
A national policy for the development of Canada's natural resources and industrial capacity merits and makes necessary the introduction of a long range immigration policy calculated to bring into Canada selected immigrants whose qualifications are such as to effectively permit them to be assimilated into our democratic way of life.
Let me add that I did not split the infinitive, sir. It continues:
Such immigration should be conducted in close co-operation between the dominion and the provinces.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not suggest at any time there was anything wrong with it. In fact, the only words I used were words of

commendation. But when one compares that with the detailed and forthright language used by Mr. Mackenzie King on May 1, 1947, most of which I repeated in a speech I made at Dauphin, Manitoba-and which I would be glad to send to any hon. member who would like to have it, either for reading, or for reference purposes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to read this speech to the house although, Mr. Speaker,
I am very much tempted to do so. I am proud of it. However, I think I will read the concluding paragraphs because they do attempt to summarize in very general terms what is said in more detail elsewhere in the speech. This was what I said:
There is a mistaken impression in some quarters that the right to migrate from one country to another is one of the rights recognized in the universal declaration of human rights drawn up by the United Nations. It is not.
As the law stands in Canada today and as it has always stood, the only persons who have an unqualified right to be in this country are Canadian citizens and, of course, the Sovereign.
Immigrants who have been in Canada long enough to acquire Canadian domicile, but who have not yet become citizens, have very considerable legal rights and, under the existing law, immigration officers have no right to prevent them from returning to Canada so long as they retain their Canadian domicile.
But parliament has always reserved to the government the right to select the persons who may be admitted to this country as immigrants with the intention of becoming members of our national household.
Parliament has laid down certain principles to govern the selection of immigrants, and the government itself has laid down more detailed regulations based on those principles.
Broadly speaking, these principles boil down to this. We try to select as immigrants those who will have to change their ways least in order to adapt themselves to Canadian life and to contribute to the development of the Canadian nation. That is why entry to Canada is virtually free to citizens of the United Kingdom, the United States and France so long as they have good health and good characters.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Was that all one paragraph?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is why a deliberate preference is shown for immigrants from countries with political and social institutions similar to our own. That is why a deliberate preference is given to the relatives of Canadian citizens and other persons already resident in Canada. And that is why a deliberate preference is given to people possessing qualifications or occupations which give them an opportunity for employment or establishment.
In all these cases, the immigrant, other things being equal, is likely to find his feet faster and to adapt himself to our ways better than other immigrants without these qualifications.
All this is not to say that we set up, or pretend to set up, immigrants from some countries or of some races as being superior to others in an absolute or intrinsic sense. All we are saying is that we have already built a certain kind of nation here in the northern half of North America and

that we want to preserve the kind of nation we have built and that we want to admit, as partners in the development of our nation, those newcomers we consider are most likely to help us most to maintain and develop the kind of nation we want Canada to remain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as an endurance marathon the house has indeed had an example this afternoon of the number of words that could be placed side by side in a period of two hours and leave the house without any knowledge whatsoever of the immigration policy of this country. Indeed, as I listened to the hon. member and recalled that at one time he was the custodian of many of the ideas of a former prime minister, I could not help but conclude that I might paraphrase the policy of another day: immigration if necessary, but not necessarily immigration. It was an unusual speech. It brought the house once more back to the days when the ability to draw on classical allusions and quote from forgotten history was common. The house has lost that talent in recent years. The minister revealed his erudition when he recalled the days of Boadicea. I could not but conclude that his ideas of immigration were indeed secured from those days when Boadicea lived in England and did not wish immigrants from Europe to overrun that country.
It was an interesting speech. If ever the words of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) were established by a minister of the crown, they were this afternoon by the minister. He said that a mess was left to the present minister by his predecessor. The minister established beyond any doubt today that the only difference between what he inherited and what now exists is a few more ingredients which he himself has added while he has been in office.
As I listened to the enunciation of the absolutism in that department I realized some of the reasons that the department of immigration and the department of Indian affairs should be joined together in these two "I" departments. The minister gave us to understand that as far as immigration is concerned, and-certainly as far as Indian affairs are concerned, whatever he decides to do is indeed proper and fitting, and ought not to be challenged in the courts of our country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said it should be challenged in parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to quote anyone who is prejudiced. The minister says that the immigration laws of this country are being administered in a way that is equitable, in a manner that recognizes the fact that we are dealing not with digits but
Immigration
with human beings. I quote as the first witness not one who is prejudiced but one of the most distinguished jurists in our country, a man who I believe was the successor of the Prime Minister as one of the senior officials of the Canadian Bar Association, one of the men who represented this country in San Francisco in 1945. I refer to Chief Justice Farris of British Columbia, a man who at one time, while in politics, was a supporter of this government, a man whose brother, one of the most distinguished of the Canadian bar, is a senator of our country. This is what he said on January 19, 1955:
Immigration officials are "fooling the public".
As I listened to my hon. friend I came to the conclusion that that attitude of mind extended to those in the most senior positions in the department of immigration. Chief Justice Farris said:
Department is circumventing the Immigration Act.
The minister says: "Trust me. We will not do anything wrong if we have absolute power. Just trust us; we know." I watched the Prime Minister as my hon. friend revealed his attitude toward the legal profession when he said: We dare not let solicitors know the reason that we refuse admission to immigrants from other lands because they might use the information improperly. Never in my experience in the house has there been a greater calumny levelled against the members of the legal profession. Does my hon. friend not know that even if undesirable individuals find their way into the legal profession, that any information they have secured as solicitors cannot be used? Yet his explanation as to the reason that solicitors should not be made aware in any way of the hidden Star Chamber reasons which deny prospective immigrants the right to come to this country is that he is afraid the lawyers might take advantage of it.
That was the attitude taken in the reign of Charles I by the then head of the Star Chamber when he once said: "We administer justice; we need no lawyers, and whatever we do is right." That was said in 1642, and Your Honour will recall that the person on behalf of whom that statement was made lost a head, and a good one, in consequence of the Star Chamber activities.
I read you another judgment. On November 19, 1954, a recent appointee to the supreme court of Ontario, Mr. Justice Stewart, said, as reported in the Toronto Star:
If immigration department regulations require Czechoslovakia-born Vojen Cech, now in Canada as a visitor, to return to Venezuela to apply for entry into this country as an immigrant, it is utter nonsense.

Immigration
Yesterday in the city of Montreal a former member of this house, Mr. Justice Rheaume, made this statement when George Sylvestre Simmonds, a Jamaican student at the University of Toronto, who married a Canadian girl, was about to be deported and made an application by way of habeas corpus to stay in Canada. There was nothing he could do. He then went on to say this:
The department had failed to establish a justifiable cause for the deportation, but the order had to be complied with because all the legal formalities had been followed.
That was yesterday. The judge said that there was no justification for sending this Jamaican home. He was a good citizen. The judge then uttered these words which my hon. friend might engrave on the doorway into his office:
"I cannot remain indifferent to sentiments of hospitality"-
Yes, the letter of the law killeth. My hon. friend says, trust us. He places himself on a pedestal and says that the decisions that he in his omnipotence makes shall be unchallenged. That statement was made by him today. I do not say that mistakes will not be made. My hon. friend points out that several hundred thousand people have come into Canada since 1945.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Over a million.


John George Diefenbaker: Over a million, yes, but two come in and one goes out. Over a million. Yes, mistakes will be made. There is bound to be some bungling and there are bound to be injustices in individual cases. I would not hold a minister of the government responsible for those things because they happen so long as men are subject to the ordinary vicissitudes and emotions of life.
In so far as the administration of this department is concerned, this is the first time that I know, when bungling has become the cornerstone of policy, when what is done by the supreme authority of this department is to be placed above the courts of our land. One judge after another has had to conclude that, indeed, if the department uses a reasonable degree of care, however tyrannical the decision may be, that decision is not challengeable in the courts. That is why this motion was brought before parliament.
My hon. friend says that we did not raise this motion last year. The reason it was not raised from time to time when we went into supply was that we did not expect that what had been done in 1935, and in 1952, putting off immigration to the last, had become a way of action to be continued in 1954.
What is being done today in the immigration department has been described by the

Edmonton Journal as a national scandal. It refers to the arbitrary and secretive manner in which cases are handled, to say nothing of the outright favouritism displayed on some occasions. When there is no recourse to the courts the power of discrimination becomes intensified. Delays have been inexcusable. I have case after case here of people being pushed around, of arrogance and abuse of authority. These are the things that the courts of this country have objected to.
This afternoon we welcomed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to this house. In June, 1954, during the last days of the session he asked for a royal commission to investigate what has been recognized by papers across our country, without regard to party, as a mess. He repeated that request in September when he returned from abroad. The need for it was proved today by the minister in his speech. In the presence of my leader I say that what has taken place can no longer be permitted to continue without intensive examination through a royal commission, to the end that the actions of the last year, the last two years and the last three years shall not become a continued and perpetual portion of the administration of that department.
My hon. friend has said to the hon. member for Kamloops "What has Magna Carta to do with it?" I was surprised to hear that statement from my hon. friend with his vast erudition in history. What has Magna Carta to do with it? Long years ago in 1215 Magna Carta made a declaration, and it has been of the essence of the British peoples ever since: to no man will we deny, to no man will we delay, justice.
Is there anyone in this house who will tell me that when the minister is despotic and highhanded, when he rides roughshod over the statute, when he substitutes the caprice of a minister for the will of parliament, the courts of this country should not have the right to say: You shall not do that. My hon. friend says that the courts do not understand, and I am going to refer to that a little later because that is the attitude of the departmental senior official. The minister says: You have an appeal! An appeal to Caesar, to the minister himself. An appeal from the hired man to the hired man's boss.
What a travesty on justice it is that a minister under the power granted by parliament makes regulations, the officials interpret the regulations on a day-to-day basis without uniformity, they decide the rights of the individual in secret and refuse to let the individual know their reasons for making a decision. I thought that all this had been swept aside generations ago. When the department lost a case in the courts what did

it do? It delayed doing anything. The minister says that when a decision is made the individual has a recourse, but that recourse is in mandamus, which places upon him the onus to establish a right which the minister denies exists in the individual.
There have been postponements and infinite delays. People desirous of coming to our country have waited, and the answer given is that they cannot come yet, that they may be able to come some time in the future. Hope may spring eternal in the human breast but that does not apply to those who have made application to come to Canada under our present immigration laws.
Does the house know what the deputy minister said with regard to appeals to the courts? Winnipeg is a place known to both the minister and me. We both know the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg. It was in Winnipeg, but not in the Fort Garry hotel, that the Canadian Bar Association had its meeting. I am not saying anything against Colonel Fortier because he is merely carrying out the regulations of two ministers, but he did give an answer there.
Somebody suggested that the individual should be given recourse to the courts. My hon. friend will agree that to deny to the individual the right of his day in court invariably builds up power in those who are above challenge, and permits them to treat the rights of the individual as nonexistent. At the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Winnipeg, the following resolution was passed regarding these powers:
1.	Due notice of the proceedings before any board to any person directly concerned therein.
2.	Notice of the facts which the administrative body considers relevant to the complaint or proceeding.
3.	The right to anyone adversely affected thereby to contest the allegations which would include in appropriate cases the right to cross-examine.
4.	The right to have counsel before administrative agencies.
5.	An obligation upon administrative tribunals to set forth the facts which they find and the reasons for their decision.
That was the resolution of the law society of Ontario of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is a member.
What did the deputy minister say when it was suggested that the individual should have a right of recourse to the courts? This is what he said:
One danger in giving the rejected applicant recourse to the courts is that a court may reach a final decision. The beauty of the department's present system is that the civil service can review and review and review and the applicant always has the hope that some day he may be admitted.
That is a masterpiece of an explanation against having cases taken to the court, namely because about cases in the courts
Immigration
there is a finality that does not exist in these administrative bodies and that as to those people who want to come, although they have been turned down, the cases may be reviewed and some day, somewhere, the individuals may be admitted to Canada. Then he also said this:
Sometimes the department might make a slip and deal with a lawyer's client. If we allowed applicants to know why they were rejected it would be a wrong thing for the protection of the country.
Somebody asked Mr. Fortier this question: Why would it be wrong to tell the individual why he was turned down? And he gave in effect the same answer that the minister gave today: "I am afraid I cannot say why". Mr. Speaker, this is the institution that my hon. friend defends today. I hold no brief for any member of the committee on civil liberties that dealt with the subject of immigration. That committee was composed of three lawyers: Mr. McDonald who is even at the present time, according to his recent statement, head of the Liberal organization in this part of Ontario; Mr. Dickey-and I use that form because his name appears here in that way-the senior member for Halifax, for whom I have the highest regard; and Mr. Taylor, with whom I am unacquainted. This committee was set up for the purpose of investigating the situation that existed in the department of immigration. The committee met. They had a series of meetings and I intend to refer to them if I have time to do so. They made certain recommendations. My hon. friend read those recommendations and I am not going to repeat them. Then apparently things started to move.
I was greatly surprised at my hon. friend today speaking in such disparaging terms of Mr. McDonald. He gave us to understand that Mr. McDonald was a man who would make a spectacularly unjustifiable speech in order to attain prominence in the press. My hon. friend is in a position to judge him; I am not. But that was his considered opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those were not exactly my words.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no. I have understated it, as my hon. friend said. I understated my hon. friend's words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said he was a Liberal politician.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, my hon. friend told us that he was a student of words and of the dictionary, having been trained under Mr. King to get the finest shades of meaning of words as they appeared in the dictionary.

Immigration


Mr. Rowe:: That is why he said what he said this afternoon.


John George Diefenbaker: Here is what Mr. McDonald said. Mr. McDonald came back to Ottawa.
Still "stunned" by the "surprising" reaction to the report, Mr. McDonald returned to Ottawa only today to find himself accused in some quarters of "political treachery".
Possibly my hon. friend would be able to fill in the facts about the person who held such a view of Mr. McDonald's public activities.
For two years the bar association subcommittee on civil liberties, of which Mr. McDonald was chairman, had been investigating the operations of the immigration department.
Then he goes on to say this. He says he held a press conference. Then he really opened up. He told what he knew of the department. In speaking of him, my hon. friend was rather disparaging when he spoke over the radio on a press conference. He said that Mr. McDonald did not have much experience in immigration, except as a lawyer. Anyway, Mr. McDonald said that he stood behind everything he had said not only in the report in which he was joined by the senior member for Halifax but also in the press conference and the various statements made by him. In other words, the stand that Mr. McDonald took was this: "I am unrepentant and what I said is unrevised but true". Mr. Dickey, the senior member for Halifax, resigned from the committee. The minister explained that he did so but he went on to say-and I say this with the greatest respect for the senior member for Halifax-that while Mr. Dickey had resigned as a member of the committee, he had not refuted the statements contained in the report.
What was the report? That report has been placed before you, Mr. Speaker. It was a report in which was revealed the fact that a committee on civil liberties had brought matters to the attention of the then minister, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), on several occasions. My hon. friend referred to the report attached to the report given by this committee and it states as follows:
Four meetings of the full committee were held In Ottawa-
That means that all three members were present.
-and eight other meetings of two members of the committee were held in Ottawa and Montreal.
It goes on to say that they brought these things to the attention of the minister:
In its 1953 report, the committee recommended certain administrative reforms within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration itself and the creation of an immigration appeal board based on a judicial and legal concept.

Surely that was a reasonable request. These lawyers were endeavouring to bring about a removal of the tyrannical conduct of the department. They did not regard political considerations as of any importance. They rose above that consideration. I ask you, could you have a more impartial jury to look into the activities of the immigration department than Mr. McDonald and the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey)? Incidentally, Mr. McDonald says he is going to run next time in Carleton constituency. There is a question mark at the end of that statement in the report, but I think that was an error. This was the report which they forwarded in 1954. They asked for possible codification of regulations issued by the department and the publication of interdepartmental directives to field officers. They did that to the end that there would be uniformity so that there would be no discrimination for or against anyone in the making of decisions, and so that there would be an approach to unity among the various officials.
They asked for the implementation of proper and legal appeal procedures as recommended in last year's report of the subcommittee. They asked for the establishment of a procedure setting forth reasons for rejections in each case in such a way as to give the rejected party or the applicant concerned an opportunity of overcoming the department's objections. Finally, they asked that the committee's recommendations made in the 1953 report be implemented. In their report the three members of the subcommittee said:
Your subcommittee expresses regret that no action has been taken by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to implement any of the recommendations contained in its 1953 report. We recommend that the subcommittee be continued for a further year, that it be instructed to continue to examine the administration of immigration laws and- regulations in accordance with its terms of reference . . .
Now, sir, why were these recommendations not accepted? My hon. friend brushed them aside and said that there was not much in them. I have read the material part but there are some other very interesting parts dealing with why reasons should be given. The report says:
Few Canadians realize that the minister need not: (a) notify his own department as to why he adopted a certain course . . .


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think the hon. member should identify the document from which he is now reading.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I did. This is a report of the subcommittee on civil liberties dealing with immigration, the committee members

being John H. McDonald, Ottawa, John H. Dickey, M.P., Halifax, Nova Scotia, and John R. Taylor, Vancouver. The report is dated August 10, 1954.


John Horace Dickey: On a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Horace Dickey: The document from which the hon. member is reading is not the document that he has identified.


John George Diefenbaker: The document I am
reading from is an official document that was filed with the Canadian Bar Association and attached to the report. It is dated August 10, 1954, and it is that document from which I am reading.


John Horace Dickey: On a question of privilege, the hon. member has now clarified the situation. He is reading from a document attached to the report and not from the report.


John George Diefenbaker: I have pointed out that this was attached to the report and that the names of the three committee members are to be found at the very beginning of the report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I also rise on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have risen on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I think it would be impossible to decide whether or not there is a question of privilege until the Chair can hear it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I read the full report that was actually presented at Winnipeg and that passage was not in the document at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it was not in the document my hon. friend read. I will proceed to read what this appendix says, and I do not want to repeat.
Few Canadians realize that the minister need not . . .
(b) Give reasons for judgment because of some "personal matter".
If the immigration service can proceed in this way it is a travesty on justice and a serious danger to the success of administrative procedures, and secondly, if judicial procedures are defeated by administrative procedures by the department .	.	. then liberties are being whittled away
from all.
It is submitted that it is unthinkable that parliament ever intended that the minister could deport persons or admit persons, and remain silent as to why he took such action because of some "personal matter".
Immigration
Then it goes on to say:
Parliament does not give the minister presiding over customs or the minister presiding over trade and commerce that much power over a can of beans imported into this country. The department carries on its affairs in secrecy. This was referred to in an earlier report. Another solicitor has submitted the following to this committee . . .
The report then deals with the question of secrecy breeding misunderstandings, suspicion and trouble. Then there is the following in a letter quoted in the report:
If there is anything that will lead more quickly to the abuse of democracy than these hole-in-the-corner meetings, we do not know of it. In fact there are some of us old-fashioned enough to believe that all public business should be transacted in public, where everybody can see.
Then the report goes on to set out certain details. Sir, no amount of evasion can remove the responsibility from the minister for failing to act or at least to give a reason. According to this report from which I am reading, and which is attached to the formal three-page report, it is stated that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) was approached four times and asked by the members of the committee if he would meet them and that he did not do so.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have not been present during all the time my hon. friend has been speaking so perhaps I am not fully aware of what he has said, but I am certain I saw the committee on the 30th of June last year.


John George Diefenbaker: On the 30th of June? Well, that would not alter the fact that there were a number of times when the minister did not see them.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not recall ever refusing to see them.


John Horace Dickey: On a question of privilege, I would very much like the hon. member to give the source of the suggestion which he has just made and the basis of that particular assertion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have given the source. I did not intend to bring my hon. friend into the picture because I thought he had taken such a brave stand, but again I point out that this is a report of the subcommittee on civil liberties dealing with immigration of the Canadian Bar Association and that the members were as named.


John Horace Dickey: My point is-


An hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege.


John Horace Dickey: -on what basis does the hon. member make the particular assertion that he has just made in connection with the Minister of Finance?

Immigration


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why my hon. friend did not choose people he could rely upon to be members of the committee. After all, his name is there, and there is an old proverb that what is written down even a team of horses cannot pull out. Yes, that is the record, and it is a record that indicates that these gentlemen did in fact bring up a matter of singular importance, one that deserved attention, in 1953 and in 1954. But the law still remains unchanged and the uncontrolled despotism of unknown bureaucrats sitting in a Star Chamber is still a part of the law so far as immigration is concerned.
My time is almost up, but I should like to point out that evidence as to the operation of the immigration regulations is to be found in the files of almost every member of the house. It is to be found in the judgments of superior courts. It is to be found also in the record to which I have just made reference. I am not going into these examples which I have. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) over the years has stated, and I do not contradict him in any way, that in every case he read over these files. However admirable my hon. friend may be, and I would be the last to say anything to the contrary, to place him in a position where in his unchallengeable power, in the secrecy of his own office, he can determine my rights is something that shocks the sensibilities of those who believe that the courts of the land are standing guard over the rights of the people.
I shall give one example that came to hand the other day. A number of Canadians left here in 1947 for Yugoslavia, no doubt attracted by the specious promises of communism. Then, they tried to come back. There is a record here of one Canadian whose family came back, but who has been denied the right to return. He asks: What business have you to say to me, as a Canadian, that I cannot return to my own land? Canada did take its part in the United Nations in support of the principle of the right of a citizen to return to his own land. For several years this man has been trying to return. He asks, "Why can I not come? I will not be a public charge." The answer, in effect, is that this department knows best.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him his time has expired.


John George Diefenbaker: I can finish-


Walter Edward Harris: I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would permit the hon. member to continue. When he continues, I hope

he will give me the name and citizenship of the person to whom he refers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), with the unanimous consent of the house, may continue.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall continue and I will conclude my remarks in three lines. I do not want to do anything to take advantage of the courtesy of the house in extending the time. I do say this. Is there any reason that an individual, with the same feelings you and I have, at the caprice of an unknown person in an unknown place, shall be denied the right to return to his own country? The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) set out our views in that admirable and masterly address that opened this debate the other day. All I have tried to do was to fill in some of the needs for alteration of the laws of this country to make the department of immigration a department of immigration rather than a department that places in the hands of a minister the power to say when the tap shall be on or the tap shall be off, and that whatever he decides is final, for he is above the courts.
If the courts decide against him, then he may try the old route of order in council to circumvent the courts, or he may delay carrying out the orders of the courts thereby, in effect saying to the courts of the land, "You may declare, but we can postpone." This party asks for a royal commission to investigate this whole business, and to investigate what the press of our country almost without exception regards as deliberate confusion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The hon. member for Temiscouata.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not want to take precedence, Mr. Speaker, but I did ask the hon. member for Prince Albert for the name and citizenship of the gentleman to whom he was referring.


John George Diefenbaker: The name is Prpich.


Walter Edward Harris: Will you give it to me in writing?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: As it is one minute to six, shall I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: No, I shall make a few remarks, and then I shall adjourn the debate. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has made probably the most impressive speech of his career because he has not only referred to

the Star Chamber but also quoted the precedent of Magna Carta and has even exhumed good King Charles. Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, in my experience before the courts I have been very much interested to follow the trials presided over by Chief Justice Sir Frangois Lemieux. He was a great criminal lawyer, a man of great experience and was acknowledged by all as one of the most able jurists of his time. One day there came before him the case of a fellow who had stolen some property from somewhere in the district. His counsel spoke along the same lines as did the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and referred to Magna Carta, and also to the king who had died in a tragic manner. He referred to King Charles, to Louis XVI and Emperor Nicholas of Russia, as well as to others. He said, "This is why tyrants have died."
When the judge came to deliver his address to the jury he said, "One has spoken about Emperor Nicholas of Russia, about King Louis XVI of France and King Charles of England. But forget all that, and think of the defendant"-so and so, of such and such a place-"who has stolen property and is now before the court facing that accusation." The judge said that to the jury, and the jury gave to the judge's statement the weight it deserved.
As my hon. friend has spoken about the past and the dead, I shall answer his quotation from the great beyond by another quotation from the great beyond, and refer to a statement that was made in the presence of the hon. member, right here in the House of Commons, in May of 1947 by the then leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Mackenzie King. He enunciated a realistic Canadian immigration policy in which he stressed four points-and I want my hon. friend to listen to them, because it is the basis of my argument this evening:
First, to increase the population by permanent and carefully selected immigrants;
Second, not to exceed the capacity of absorption of our national economy;
Third, not to bring any fundamental change in the ethnical character of the population.
Those were matters that were overlooked by the hon. member and by other speakers
Immigration
from the other side of the house-unless they agreed with them. Then:
Fourth-and this is the main point to which I wish to bring the attention of the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton)-the access into Canada is not a human right. It is a privilege that the Canadian nation alone can grant. It is a matter of domestic policy.
Well, you cannot use mandamus to force the minister to give an applicant something that is not his right. The applicant must first have the right to it; and nobody outside Canada has the right to insist upon coming here. He must be here only if the government of the country accepts him as a Canadian. If not, he must stay out. And it is as the minister has said, that the applications made were much more numerous than those that were granted. Or, according to the words of the Scripture: Many are called but few are chosen.
The hon. member has spoken only in generalities-that is, with the exception of two cases, when he mentioned the Simmonds case and the Prpich case. The newspaper article I read said that the judge had declared that it was an unprecedented case- which means that there was no precedent for it. I hope my hon. friend follows me when I say that "unprecedented" means that there was no precedent beforehand. Is that clear, now? It means that it was the first time it had happened.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member means that it had never happened before.


Jean-François Pouliot: I presume that it means that it never happened before. It is the one and only case of that kind. And my hon. friend knows no more about it than I do, because probably we both read it from the same paper. It shows that the judge was very friendly. He made a recommendation to the department which had never been made before.
My hon. friend curses the department, but makes no useful recommendation, except the one of a royal commission, just as if members of parliament were non-entities and unable to look after their business. It is the same story: Abandonment of parliamentary responsibility.
Then he quoted two sentences from one judge, Chief Justice Farris, for whom I have great respect:
The department is circumventing the Immigration Act. Immigration officials are fooling the public.
This is what was said by the chief justice of British Columbia. I know him by sight

Immigration
only, never having had the privilege of meeting him. But he gives no facts-just the same as the members of the opposition-no facts; just generalities.
And the other judge, Mr. Justice Stewart, said:
If the immigration department regulations prevent a Czechoslovakian to return to Venezuela, it is nonsense.
That is one other case, the opinion of another judge. If my hon. friend suggests a royal commission, then he will insist upon judges being appointed thereon. If such a royal commission were appointed, I would challenge the right of Chief Justice Farris and of Mr. Justice Stewart to sit on it, because of prejudice.
Now, here is the report of the bar association subcommittee on civil liberties. The gentlemen who sat on it are persons for whom I have great respect, but evidently they were not familiar with the views of my old leader, as he expressed them.
And now, immediately after that reference to the subcommittee of the bar association on civil liberties, I shall read again the fourth pronouncement of Mr. King about a realistic policy on immigration:
The access into Canada is not a human right; it is a privilege that the Canadian nation alone can grant. It is a matter of domestic policy.
This is what the hon. member for Prince Albert does not understand, although he argued, as well as anyone could do it, the case of the rejected applicants who desire to migrate here. But then, speaking always as if the immigrants had the right to force the minister to grant their application to come to Canada, he cited the arbitrary and secretive manner in which cases are handled. The minister has to render account to parliament. He spoke more modestly than the hon. member for Prince Albert ever did. He admitted that sometimes he could make mistakes. Then the hon. gentleman spoke of the outright favouritism displayed on some occasions.
Who defended the minister this afternoon? The hon. member for Prince Albert himself, because I took notes and here is what he said, if I took down his words correctly:
However tyrannical the decision may be it is not challengeable in the courts. That is why the motion was brought before parliament.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We will not have to go to the show any more.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I am so glad. I share the applause for the hon. member for Prince Albert and I admit that he is by far my superior in eloquence. I want to be as modest

as the minister, and it is just as well to be humble. Politics is a great lesson in modesty and humility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: For the Liberals, not for the
Conservatives.
I see the minister here, sir. I see him beaming just because he knows that I will recall his able defence by the hon. member for Prince Albert. Although he was acting on behalf of the rejected applicants, he had a soft spot in his heart for the minister. Here is what the hon. member for Prince Albert said:
There is bound to be some bungling and there are bound to be injustices in individual cases. I would not hold a minister-
Mark you, sir, listen, Mr. Speaker; this is the hon. member for Prince Albert speaking:
I would not hold a minister-
The minister is the hon. gentleman who is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of the St. Laurent government.
I would not hold a minister of the government responsible for these things because they happen so long as men are subject to the ordinary vicissitudes and emotions of life.
This is the first time in my whole long parliamentary career that a cabinet minister has been at the same time attacked and defended by the same member of parliament in the same speech. One must be an artist to realize such stunts. Then, there was the Prpich case. The hon. member mentioned it in a strange manner. I took some notes. The hon. member said:
I shall give one example that came to hand the other day. A number of Canadians left here in 1947 for Yugoslavia, no doubt attracted by the specious promises of communism. Then, they tried to come back. There is a record here of one Canadian whose family came back, but who has been denied the right to return. He asks: What business have you to say to me, as a Canadian, that I cannot return to my own land? Canada did take its part in the United Nations in support of the principle of the right of a citizen to return to his own land.
' I agree with my hon. friend; a Canadian may have the right to come here unless he has got into difficulty of some kind elsewhere. Then he would be subject to the punishment of the courts. But if he is a Canadian he is subject to the laws of justice in this country. However, I do not know anything about that case. It may be as bad as my hon. friend says. The hon. gentleman mentioned two cases, the Simmonds case and the Prpich case. All the rest were generalities. I am sorry, because my hon. friend is so gifted. There is a Latin phrase which goes as follows: "Nascuntur poetae, fiunt oratores". One is

born a poet; one becomes an orator. My hon. friend was born an orator. He has all the gifts, and I regret that he did not treat the important subject of immigration as it deserved to be treated. Instead of attacking and defending the minister at the same time, he should have replied to the hon. member for Kamloops. It was up to him, with his experience, to establish before this parliament and the country that the hon. member for Kamloops spoke through his hat, and it would have been a wonderful experience.
I now come to it, if the house will listen to me. It will not be long. I will take the second ground of complaint of the hon. member for Kamloops. He said, as reported at page 1163 of Hansard:
The second branch of our criticism of the government under this heading, that immigration policies are not in conformity with the needs and responsibilities of Canada, is the concern we feel because the government has neglected British immigration.
And on the following page:
Our criticism of the government here is based on the fact that by their negligence and inattention, they are losing for Canada one of the most desirable sources of immigrants.
And then, in conclusion:
These facts, Mr. Speaker, support our contention that the government is not paying sufficient regard to immigration and the potentialities of immigration from the United Kingdom.
Now, I will deliver the speech that the hon. member for Prince Albert should have delivered in answer to the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What was that again?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend arrives just in time. I was just about to deliver the speech that the hon. member for Prince Albert should have delivered to confound the hon. member for Kamloops. I say that in all modesty and humility because it is not my speech; it is the speech of the hon. member for Prince Albert. It is about immigration to and from the United Kingdom and the commonwealth of British nations. A total of 6,900 people left Canada to go to the United Kingdom, while
44,000	Britishers came to Canada. A total of 11,500 left Australia to go to the United Kingdom while 30,600 went from the United Kingdom to Australia. Those who left New Zealand for the United Kingdom totalled 3,400 as opposed to 14,600 who left the United Kingdom for New Zealand. A total of 4,300 left South Africa for the United Kingdom and 6,600 left the United Kingdom for South Africa. Figures are given for other parts of the empire.
The total of those who left commonwealth countries to go to the United Kingdom was
Immigration
62,100 while the total of those who left the United Kingdom to go to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, East and West Africa, India, Pakistan and other countries of the commonwealth was 127,800. That indicates that the number leaving the United Kingdom for various parts of the commonwealth was a little more than twice as much as the number of those who left commonwealth countries to go to Great Britain.
The migration from the British Isles to commonwealth countries totalled 127,800. Those who left the United Kingdom not including Ireland for the United States totalled 65,361, whereas those who left Eire for the United States totalled 17,756. The total number of migrants from the British Isles to commonwealth countries and the United States was 210,917. A total of 4,900 Britishers came to Canada via the United States, making a total of 53,492 British immigrants coming to Canada, or nearly one-half the total of British migration to commonwealth countries; one-quarter of the total migration to the United States, and more than two-fifths of British migration to commonwealth countries. That is something.
What should be stressed at the present is that we should respect the desires of the immigrant. I am not precisely an academic advocate of a bill of rights or other frills of that kind, but I believe that we should respect the liberty and freedom of those who want to migrate from one country to another. This is a principle of freedom which cannot be denied by anyone.
Those who migrated from the British Isles were absolutely free to make their choice as to whether they would go to any part of the commonwealth or to the United States. They made that choice and no one can challenge their right. The total immigration into Canada was 144,692. British immigration including those who come through the United States amounted to 53,000. The total immigration into Australia in 1953, the last figure we have, was 163,125; British immigration amounted to 30,600, about one-fifth. Immigration into New Zealand amounted to 62,712 with British immigration totalling 14,600.
My hon. friend should have said that immigrants, British or otherwise, are perfectly free to make a choice as to country. No one can prevent them from doing that. I could have understood my hon. friend making a charge against the department if he had said that so many Britishers who wanted to come to Canada had been denied access to this country. He said nothing of the sort; he spoke of two or three cases out of a total of 174,000.

Immigration
I suggest that my hon. friend read the report of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It is a most valuable document, more important than Hansard. It is more important than the opinions of two or three judges or of a subcommittee of the bar association. It contains facts which he should know.
I referred to the 174,000 immigrants that came here last year. Of that number, only 2,213 were refused admission. When I saw that figure I thought the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would come here with an arraignment of the minister, with instances of those who had suffered injustice. Nothing of the sort, and there were 2,213 who had been refused admission.


An hon. Member:: They were communists.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are indicated as being mental and medical cases so probably they were communists. My hon. friend does not deny anything about that. The deportations numbered 630. That is a fine canvas for a long space. My hon. friend did not say anything about it. Where he missed the boat was when he did not speak of the qualifications of the immigrants and the necessity of their accepting our mode of life and becoming Canadian citizens, as most of them have.
It is most important in the first place to make the right selection. I suggest to the minister that he get in touch with the Department of External Affairs in order that there is no mistake in making the right selections. In the second place there is the question of absorption and the accepting of the incoming people as good Canadians. This is a very important thing and a long speech could be made about it. They should be taught patriotism. They should be told that they have a fine future here provided that they work. They should be told that they cannot rely on the social legislation when they come here. They must help themselves, be good Canadians, and work just as the majority of Canadian people do. They should be told that at the start. Then they would not be deceived. Some of them come here to get allowances and benefits of every description. They must be told that Canada is the finest country in the world, that it will become their country by adoption, and that they will become true Canadians but that they must be worthy of this country and must give evidence of their worthiness by contributing to the general welfare of all.
I do not intend to speak any longer, Mr. Speaker. I could make a much longer speech; I could speak twice as long as did the minister this afternoon, but I would not have the opportunity to do so. I would be stopped.

However, I must tell the hon. gentleman that he is greatly mistaken if he thinks that the Conservative party will get a vote from the speeches that have been made by the Conservative party on the immigration policies of the government. The Canadian people are no fools. They will realize that there is nothing in them and they will say "Poor Kamloops" and "Poor Prince Albert".


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I feel rather like someone who has strayed by mistake onto the stage where on the same bill we have Sir Laurence Olivier and Fridolin. I am sure I cannot compete with either of them. I have no rodomontade and no drollery to offer you. In fact, I am not at all sure that this is actually a subject that either of those methods suits. On the other hand, I have some rather hard, grim, indigestible facts for the minister to try his teeth on.
I should say first that I do not hold the opinion of the minister that is held by some hon. members who spoke this afternoon. I do not think he is a Caesar; I do not think he has that vaulting ambition. I do not think he has the sinister character that has been painted. Admittedly I have a soft spot in my heart for him as one must have for someone who once loaned him a pair of pants to save him from sartorial disaster. In addition to that, I always have a weakness for intelligence wherever I find it, even in such an unlikely place as the treasury benches. But I am afraid that the minister, like some of his predecessors, has become a prisoner of some rather dubious elements in the public administration.
I was interested yesterday during the speech of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) when the minister asked him if he had the judgment on the Leong Ba Chai case and the hon. member for Kamloops said no, that he did not have it. Then today the minister quoted from that judgment, and I presume he had it in his hand; but curiously enough he was not able to answer my question when I asked him if the supreme court and the appeal court of British Columbia had not given precisely the same judgment. He said he did not know. He was not able to answer me. Yet curiously enough, in the judgment of Mr. Justice Taschereau, we read this:
Mr. Justice Clyne, before whom the application was made, directed the issue of a writ of mandamus ordering the immigration officer forthwith to consider the said application, and the court of appeal of British Columbia unanimously confirmed this decree.
We have this curious situation. We have this infallible department that is not content with the supreme court of British Columbia

telling them that they are wrong, telling them that they are wrong on a point of law, and that they do not know the law; not content with that, they have to appeal to the court of appeal of British Columbia and the court of appeal of British Columbia tells them precisely the same thing. Then what do they do? They bring the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, at heaven only knows what cost to the taxpayers of Canada.
I would not lay so much stress on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but for the fact that, on looking back through many of the judgments,
I find that this is apparently the usual course of procedure of this infallible department. It is never satisfied with one judgment against it. It must line up two or three other judgments and finally get kicked in the teeth here in Ottawa by the Supreme Court of Canada.
On this particular case it is quite true- as the minister told us this afternoon-that after the finding of the Supreme Court of Canada the department at long last obeyed the instructions of the court and entertained the application of Leong Ba Chai from Hong Kong. Admittedly it was probably a long process because he was in Hong Kong. But the original application took place in 1952. Not a single thing has been changed since that time. They had a decision of a competent supreme court in British Columbia. Had they at that time obeyed the instructions of the supreme court of British Columbia, this young man might have reached Canada before his father died. It is a rather pathetic footnote to this squalid tale of stupidity, arrogance and incompetence that this old man finally died before his son was able to enter Canada.
It is not only cases of this kind that the infallible department of immigration drags through court after court; it is also the procedure with cases of people who are going to be deported. It may be perfectly true- as the minister has been at great pains to tell us again and again-that these applicants for immigration have no rights whatever, but that they merely have privileges that we grant. However, it is a different proposition in the case of someone who is resident in Canada and whose case is suddenly pulled out of the files by the immigration department, as was the case of a lady in Toronto recently. I refer to a lady by the name of Brent, an American lady who married a Canadian and who came legally into this country.
Does the minister wish to ask a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was wondering whether that case was not still before the courts and whether the hon. gentleman felt he ought to discuss it while it was before the courts. I have no objection-
Immigration


Colin Cameron: That is fine. It is before the courts. I am glad the minister told me that. I thought probably that was the case, that it might again be dragged to the third court. Of course I will not discuss it. Instead of doing that, I will discuss a case which has been disposed of by the courts and which is entirely on all fours with the Brent case. In fact, the judgments are on the same point. I want to read to the house and to the minister a rather scathing indictment of the department's behaviour which apparently is the same as it was in 1932 when this judgment was given by the late* Sir Lyman Duff.
This was the case of a Japanese, and curiously enough it was a Japanese who was picked up on the street in Nanaimo.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. member say that was in 1932?


Colin Cameron: Yes; 1932.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He surely does not expect us to take responsibility for what was done in 1932.


Colin Cameron: No; I am not
expecting you to do that but I am expecting you to take responsibility for your stupidity and incompetence in 1955; you are pursuing precisely the same policy for which the supreme court rapped the department in 1932. That is the point. You have not learned anything. This young Japanese came to Canada perfectly legally. His uncle was his sponsor. He came to Nanaimo. He set up a restaurant. This young man was going to be a cook in the restaurant. Shortly after he arrived the uncle fell sick and had to close his restaurant and this young man had to find other employment, as he did; but he was picked up in the other employment by officials of the department of immigration and they were going to deport him. They refused to divulge to him the reasons for which he was being deported, just as they had refused to divulge the reasons in the case which I must not discuss in 1955.
Sir Lyman Duff had this to say:
The chief question I desire to discuss is the effect of section 23 of the Immigration Act. The words, "had, made or given under the authority and in accordance with the provisions of this act relating to the detention or deportation of any rejected immigrant, passenger or other person, upon any ground whatsoever, unless such person is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile", are an essential part of this section; and its disqualifying provisions obviously can only take effect where the conditions expressed in these words are fulfilled.
In particular, the phrase "in accordance with the provisions of this act" cannot be neglected; their meaning is plain. The "order" returned as
The word "late" teas incorrectly used-see page 1279.

Immigration
justifying the detention must be "in accordance with the provisions of this act." It must not. that is to say, be essentially an order made in disregard of some substantive condition laid down by the act. This applies to the order of the minister as well as to the order of the board of inquiry.
The order of the minister must be an order directing the investigation of facts alleged in a complaint made to him; and such facts, unless the enactment is to be reduced to the merest parade of words, must be alleged, of course, in such a manner as to make the allegation reasonably intelligible to the person against whom the investigation is directed.
The jurisdiction of the board, as an investigating body, is limited to the investigation of the facts alleged, a condition, again, implying intelligibility of allegation. Indeed, unless the person concerned is to have a reasonable opportunity of knowing the nature of the allegations, what is the purpose of requiring his presence?
Now, Mr. Speaker, the point of all this is that this particular judgment was quoted in the courts in connection with the Brent case which the minister now tells us he is going to drag to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not know how many times they have to be dragged through the courts at public expense before these infallible people will accept the fact that certain things must be complied with if the law is to be carried out.
I come to another case, and this one has some rather interesting features too. This is a case in 1952 before the courts of Ontario where again the department of immigration decided that they had grounds for deporting a man who came from the West Indies. His name was Legge, and it was alleged that he was a rather unsuitable person to be a citizen of Canada, which he may have been. I do not know. But the point is that he was in this country for a considerable period before there was any attempt made to deport him and it was not-and this is very important-until his wife and children arrived from the West Indies and proved to be of a different hue from the minister of citizenship and immigration and myself that they decided he was an unsuitable person to be a resident of Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: On a question of privilege, the question of the hue had nothing to do with the case. The file was opened and shown to the leader of the party to which my hon. friend belongs.


Colin Cameron: I know it was opened and, moreover, I know that the minister had had complaints about this man upon which he had not acted until these other circumstances arose. Moreover, in that file there is not a single statement of conviction for the criminal record he is alleged to have had in Jamaica. Has the minister got anything to say to that? Can he produce that evidence of conviction?


Walter Edward Harris: There were no evidences of conviction. There were letters and documents indicating convictions. I have forgotten the first point my hon. friend made. What else did my hon. friend say?


Colin Cameron: That you had no
evidence of conviction and that you had had representations in this case for some considerable time before action was taken.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not recall that. This gentleman got into difficulties in the town of Col-lingwood and, as I recall, moved to London. During that time people were complaining about him and when we found where he was we took action.


Colin Cameron: On what grounds was he deported, and was he given the facts of the case against him? Did he have an opportunity to refute the arguments of the department?


Walter Edward Harris: At the moment I cannot say to what extent he was given that, but I know that at the time of the hearing he was well aware of all charges against him. How much earlier than the hearing I must say I cannot say now.


Colin Cameron: At the time of the hearing he saw all the charges against him?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


An hon. Member:: Next case.


Colin Cameron: There was no evidence of conviction and the minister to this day has not got in his files any substantive evidence of a criminal record for this man. I can only say that it is a most remarkable coincidence that when this man's family arrived from the West Indies it was discovered that he really was an unsuitable resident of Canada. We hear a lot about the famous McCarran Act in the United States, but I am told by lawyers who have appeared before the board of immigration appeals there that they have a very different system from the kangaroo courts that we establish here. I am told that they have a board of immigration appeals upon which no official of the immigration department sits, but legally trained personnel are present and any lawyer, whether he be American or foreign, can appear with full rights before that board.
I am told that all the charges against a person who is to be deported are presented to him and as much time as he wishes can be spent on the case.
I suggest that if we had something of this sort in Canada we would not have these hole-and-corner deportation orders that are taking place after being dragged through court after

court after court. It is all very well for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to tell us as he did this afternoon of the very few deportation orders that have been signed in proportion to the number of immigrants. He did not tell us, however, how many people are warned that if they do not leave the country in a voluntary manner they will be deported. How many are there? I suggest the case would be very different.
I want to appeal to the minister not to take refuge in this silly attitude that there is nothing wrong with his department, because I suggest with all respect that the opinions of the justices of the courts of Canada surely should be treated with at least as much respect as the opinions of the subordinates of the department of immigration, and they do not appear to have been. In fact, it seems to have been the considered policy of the department to ignore every judgment and to go on to get another one, presumably on the advice of departmental officials.
I think there is also this to be considered. It is all very well to say that these people have no rights, but they appear before officials whom you and I do not know. At least, I do not, and I will bet that most of the members of the house do not. We do not know what sort of people they are. We suspect what they are from some of their actions, but to these unfortunates who appear before them they are Canada and they come before these officials with files which may or may not be open. I challenge either the present minister or the former minister to tell the house that in every case, or even in a substantial number of cases, are the files with the charges upon which the deportation order is based made clear to those who are being deported.
Yet again and again the courts of the country have told successive ministers and successive administrators in the department that it is a breach of the law to proceed with deportation unless the unfortunate deportee has had an intelligible statement of the case against him. Again and again, the department has refused to comply with that law. Then they tell us there is nothing wrong in the department. What nonsense! I would very strongly advise the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to take a leaf out of the book of his colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), who took very drastic and severe action to clear up the mess in his department, and I gather with salutary results. Certainly, we can all commend the results. I would commend to the minister similar treatment of the interior of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Immigration
So much, sir, for the question of the administration of the present act. There is, I think, something else that perhaps we should consider, and that is the broad picture of immigration into this country. Everyone here has given lip service to the necessity of opening the doors to as many of the best possible people as we can absorb. I am going to go a little bit farther than our friends of the Conservative party went the other day, and suggest that much more strenuous efforts should be made to attract a much larger proportion of people from the British Isles than we have been getting. Before the minister tells me he would be glad to do that, I want to assure him I have some ideas on how it can be done.
I want to point this out. We have heard tonight from what I believe was described as one of the great voices from beyond, enunciating government policy. Apparently no member of this government is able to enunciate policy. They have to call a seance to get policy enunciated. In any event, the ghost has told us several times what the immigration policy for Canada is. I remember there was another statement on immigration policy to the effect that it was the aim of this great and good government to maintain as well as possible the existing ethnic balance in our population. The minister shakes his head. I stand corrected if that is not an accurate statement, but I have heard it several times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the fundamental character of the population. I do not think there was ever anything said about the existing ethnic balance, certainly not in anything I have ever seen that Mr. Mackenzie King said.


Colin Cameron: Bless my soul, I am not psychic; I do not know what Mr. Mackenzie King said. I have to rely on the statements of living ministers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mine is from Hansard.


Colin Cameron: I should like the minister to tell me just what kind of character he is looking for. Have we a yardstick of nobility that we apply to applicants for immigration? I suggest that is a ridiculous attempt to argue away a plain statement which indicated to the people of Canada roughly what the purpose of the government was, and it was a purpose that was endorsed by the people of Canada. The minister himself said earlier today that we had built a certain type of society here in Canada, and it is believed that the effects of the proportion of our population are such and such between the different ethnic groups, and if we are going to maintain it, as the minister

Immigration
suggested this afternoon he wants to do, then we have to take into consideration the ethnic make-up of our population.
Unfortunately last year, the minister's report tells us, less than one-third of the immigrants came from the British Isles. I am not for a moment decrying the worth of the immigrants who came from the other countries. All I am pointing out is this. Those immigrants come here with very great handicaps, the handicap of a strange land. The immigrants from Great Britain come here with the tremendous advantage of a similarity of language, customs and outlook, so that they can be absorbed much more easily.
There is another aspect to this problem. I do not think anyone would be likely to accuse me of being an imperialist, but I do feel we have a certain responsibility to the people of the British Isles because we have sheltered ourselves behind them on two occasions. We have a certain responsibility for them. They are now facing a serious crisis with regard to population, no matter how their public men speak. They have said it is not a crisis, but they know it is a crisis. All of them know they have a population they cannot hope to support adequately in the future. I believe it is our task in this country to make it as easy as possible for them, not merely through the administration of the department, but as easy as possible owing to economic circumstances. These people would come here with their skills, their inherited outlook on life and a common language with ourselves.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that our ability to absorb new immigrants is closely circumscribed by the level of our investment program. We can have all the orders we like and have the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration going to Britain shedding sweetness and light wherever he goes, but that will not bring another immigrant if there are not economic opportunities waiting here. In that regard we in Canada are faced with a rather depressing picture. In 1954 we had new capital outlays of some $5-8 billion. Business Week, which I do not think anyone would accuse of being a communist document, conducted a survey amongst business people, academic economists and government officials recently to get a consensus of their estimates of the likely capital investment in 1955. Their consensus was that the capital expenditure is expected to drop to $5'75 billion, a slight drop over last year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are to absorb population, if indeed we are to maintain the present population, we have to have an expanding program of investment. Instead of

that, we are faced with a contracting one. One of the reasons, of course, that our program of capital investment is contracting is the nature of many of the investments that are being made. My colleague the member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) mentioned the other day the change in the nature of United States investments in Canada within the last year or so. There has been a change to portfolio investments which merely replace existing investments in this country and do not in any way add to the productive facilities of the country. The situation has now got to the point where in 1953 there was a productive investment of United States capital in Canada of some $8,600 million, of which a very large proportion, $4 billion, is in government and municipal bonds or other portfolio investments, none of which add directly to the expansion of our economy unless the sale of the government securities to such investors is then followed by a program of public investment in the country to expand these resources.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in considering this whole problem of immigration we must also consider this problem of investment, and that we cannot much longer face the continued gradual decline in the volume of investment which has been reflected already in the rising level of unemployment. These things operate as immutably as night following day, but the way to deal with them is on a factual basis. I would suggest to the government also that there should be some fiscal discouragement of the investment of Canadian capital abroad while there is still so much to be done in expanding our facilities in Canada. I will not suggest what form this fiscal policy should take, but obviously it should be some sort of penalty that could be attached to capital investment abroad rather than in Canada. Perhaps there could be a withdrawal of the privilege that investors in Canadian companies now have, and that privilege should be confined to Canadian companies operating on the Canadian scene. If these measures fail, then I suggest that the government both for the sake of our present population and for the sake of ensuring our absorptive capacity of the volume of immigrants we all know this country requires, should undertake some balancing of the investment program on its own. I would add this, too. I agree with those speakers in the house who have pointed out that, to a certain degree, an increasing population brings with it expanding development in the way of production.
It was rather interesting to me to read the other day of a prominent industrialist who was pointing out that until our population is increased in Canada we cannot hope to engage

in large-scale mass production because we lack large-scale mass markets. Those are problems we should be facing.
And while the record of the administration of this department smells to high heaven and, in all kindness, I suggest to the minister to take his rose-coloured glasses off and get down to look at it-that's right: take them off-on the other hand I do hope that within a very short time he will be busily engaged in processing a much larger stream of immigrants so that neither he nor his subordinates will have time to play around with petty persecution, the record of which I have placed upon Hansard tonight.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, I come not as a stranger to a debate on immigration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I move that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) be now heard.


James Sinclair: What about turn about in this business?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understood the hon. member for Spadina had been granted the floor by the Chair, and had already commenced his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


David Arnold Croll: I am not sure that the hon. member for Kamloops was listening to me, so I shall commence again by saying that I come not as a stranger to a debate on immigration. Since coming to the House of Commons I have advocated immigration, in and out of season. When it was unpopular I attempted to popularize it, when it was popular I attempted to make it more so.
Unlike members of the house who have been quoting speeches others have made I have taken the trouble to read my own speeches on immigration, and I have found that from the time I came here in 1945 I have always been able to make at least one speech during a session on the subject of immigration. As I listened to the speeches made on Tuesday I thought I heard an echo, but with this difference, that my speeches were constructive.
I enter the debate for two special purposes. I feel the criticism of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), who was the former minister of citizenship and immigration, is both unfair and unjustified. He deserves better from every section of the house. He took over and organized the department, and during the 10 years I have been in the house I have had some opportunity of judging his 50433-81
Immigration
administration. In my opinion it was excellent, by any standard. Surely in the last 10 years he has been by far the best immigration minister we have had.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Present company included?


David Arnold Croll: I suggest that he was the first minister of citizenship and immigration who actually read and studied the regulations; and when he did, he changed the regulations so that at one time if you put pants on a penguin it could be admitted to this country. During the time he held the office three-quarters of a million people have come to this country as immigrants. That in itself is accomplishment enough for any one man.
I wish to say something about the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), who gave such an excellent account of himself this afternoon. We immigrants in the house have been educating him, and he is learning very quickly. In time he will do even better than he is doing now, because he has a sympathetic approach, understands the need, and is competent. At the present time he needs to be prodded a bit, because he is still a little timid. All we ask of him is a bold and courageous policy; we object to a stop and go policy with too many stops.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in his speech that two come in and one goes out. Others have spoken along the same line, but without elaborating. By that I gathered the hon. member meant that for every two immigrants coming in there is one emigrant who leaves the country.
We have talked a great deal about the immigrants who enter the country; I am going to speak for a few minutes about those who leave it, because they deserve a great deal more attention than they have received in the debate. This seems to be the appropriate occasion to discuss the matter. There has been reference during the course of the debate to the number of Canadians who have emigrated to the United States, and reference has been made particularly to skilled and professional people.
It has been very difficult for the government to pinpoint the cause of the emigration, except that we are all aware it has been going on for many years and, in the main, have attributed it to better salaries and greater opportunities in the United States. While that is far less true today than it used to be, it is still true. I have a case in point- and I do not hold the minister responsible for it, either.
Press reports indicate that the Medical Council of Canada has stated it will require medical graduates in Ontario and in some

Immigration
other provinces to serve in Canadian hospitals for at least one year of their internship before being licensed to practise. This proposed step to be taken by the medical council will surely increase and intensify the tide of emigration of the kind of people we can spare least.
These internes will continue to specialize in the United States, and abroad where more adequate facilities are available for advanced studies, at better wages and under better conditions, and more particularly where no comparable specialist facilities are available in Canada. These very same internes will be hesitant to return to Canada after the expiration of their internship in the United States to spend yet another year interning at low wages. They may have families and other obligations; they may have no other income. The consequence is that they will remain permanently in the United States.
It appears from everything I can gather that in Canada internes are paid as low as $10 and as high as $75 a month, with maintenance. Comparable wages in the United States, with maintenance, run from a low of $200 to a high of $300. Surely the time has come, if it is not long overdue, when the internes in Canada should be paid an existence wage and not be kept at servitude levels. This country will regret, and speaking for myself I now resent, the forcing of economic exile on many Canadians in whom we have large investments, both human and otherwise, for whom we have planned futures and who are urgently needed in this country to serve our own people.
The professional graduates of our universities, the engineers, the chemists, the doctors, the architects and others, are well aware of the opportunities that are available in the United States and abroad, but they are reluctant to leave Canada. They would much rather remain here but they are not prepared to sell their services at bargain prices. They ask to be paid salaries nearly comparable with those that are available in the United States and to be given comparable opportunities for advancement. According to press reports, 25 per cent of our medical graduates annually intern in the United States. What we need above all else is for the medical profession thoroughly to reexamine itself and its policies, because the Canadian people want to know why that is so. They are entitled to have an answer to why we are losing so many of our professional men in that field.
Policies such as I have indicated smack of compulsion. We do not like it; nor do we like the interference with personal liberty.

I close by saying that this has been a very useful debate. It has demonstrated, and it has been recorded, that all parties in this house are in favour of more and more immigration. That can be nothing less than an endorsation of the over-all government policy and the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Spadina, who has just taken his seat, that this has been a very useful debate. It is the first opportunity we have had during the last three years to have a full discussion on the subject of immigration, and the house welcomes that opportunity.
As has been mentioned, last year's debate occurred on the last day of the session, on June 26, and it was a hurried affair which received somewhat scant attention. I spoke during that debate on June 26. I read over the Hansard of that day and discovered that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), then the minister of citizenship and immigration, although he had answered practically everyone else who had discussed items in his estimates, had failed to make any answer whatsoever to my statements. I had drawn attention to the fact that a major change of policy had occurred, in so far as I saw it, in the year 1949. I thought the minister would pay some attention to that, but he ignored it, or rather I should say he accepted my statement as being a correct interpretation of what had been going on.
In the course of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal with one topic only tonight, namely, the long-term policy of immigration with respect to the ethnic basis of the population of Canada. In opening the debate on his amendment, the hon. member for Kamloops said, as reported at page 1158 of Hansard:
in the opinion of this house, the immigration policy of the government is not clear, consistent or co-ordinated; is not in conformity with the needs or the responsibilities of Canada; and in its administration denies simple justice to Canadians and non-Canadians alike.
It is in connection with the first section of the amendment that I propose to deal. This afternoon the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration took the amendment in reverse order. He dealt at almost interminable length with the third section of it, touched on the middle section and ended to my surprise rather briefly on the first section and did not give a complete answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to go on again if the hon. member would like me to.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope we shall be spared that fate. No doubt there will be a subsequent opportunity for the minister to participate again, and I hope that when his

estimates are under consideration he will reply to some of the remarks that I propose to make this evening.
On page 1163 of Hansard, in dealing with the question of the lack of clearness of government policy, the hon. member for Kamloops made this statement:
We do not say the immigration policy should lay undue or unfair emphasis on any one country at the expense of immigration from others. I repeat that we feel the country as a whole should pay a very real tribute to the contribution made to Canada by the people who have come to us from whatever country of origin.
Farther on he said:
Our criticism of the government in this sphere is that they have under-emphasized British immigration rather than that they have over-emphasized any other at the expense of British immigration.
In close connection with that I should like to quote a sentence or two from a speech made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) at page 1196, where he said:
On the subject of race I think the government owes a duty to the people of Canada to say, as we Conservatives say and say emphatically, that immigration into this country must never be permitted to have for its purpose disturbance of the fundamental racial position of Canada. We subscribe most emphatically to that point of view.
Some misunderstanding has been disclosed in the course of this debate as to what is the long-term policy of the government with regard to this question of the ethnic basis of our population. Tonight the minister made a correction when the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) was speaking and said that the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King had not laid it down that the policy envisaged no change in the ethnic basis of our population. There is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais), who said at page 1185 of Hansard, quoting a statement that Mr. King had made in 1947:
Third, immigration should not be the cause of an undue change in the ethnical balance of the two main groups in this country.
If I heard him correctly tonight, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) repeated words to that effect. I had occasion to look at the statement that Mr. King made on May 1, 1947, to which frequent reference has been made today. Let us put it on the record so that we shall have it accurately. In the session of 1947, volume III, page 2646, we find the words of Mr. King, the then prime minister:
There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.
Immigration
I think that is the sentence around which this other statement has been built. When you read the rest of that statement of Mr. King's it is obvious that he was referring to mass immigration as being immigration from Asian countries. As I see it, there is nothing in his statement which would lead to the belief that he was concerned about the present ethnic basis of our population. Mark you, his sentences are sometimes subject to more meaning than one and even in that sentence there are plenty of escape routes had he been challenged with regard to immigration.
The words "mass immigration" would have lent themselves to considerable explanation. When does immigration become mass immigration? Is it at 10,000, or at 100,000 or at 1,000,000,000 a year? What do the words "character of our population" mean? It was drawn to our attention this afternoon that Mr. King was meticulous in his use of words and he must have suggested the word "character" for some particular purpose. It certainly has no connection with the racial origin of people in the country. It may refer to the peculiarities, characteristics or reputation of a nation but not to the ethnic division.
I have been asking this question for three years: What is the long-term policy with regard to immigration? The impression abroad is that the government is aiming its immigration policy to protect the basic ethnic divisions in this country, but at what stage do you start? Do you go back to confedera-*tion? Do you select the census of 1871? Do-you come to 1901, 1921 or the present period? There is quite a difference.
I should like to examine the formation of our population based on four large areas, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the western provinces as indicated by information supplied by the department through the annual reports. I have worked out the following percentages in respect of the various races that comprise this country.
It is interesting to note that in 1871, the first census after confederation, the people of British origin in Canada were 60-55 per cent. According to the 1951 census they made up only 47-89 per cent of our population. In 1871 the French constituted 31-07 per cent of our population, and in 1951, 30-83 per cent. The great change occurred in the other racial groups which advanced from a percentage of 8-38 in 1871 to 21-28 in 1951. Therefore it is difficult to determine what is meant when people say that we are maintaining the fundamental racial position in Canada. Where is the point of departure?
Continuing that further and dealing with the various areas and the racial origins according to the census of 1951, in the Atlantic

Immigration
provinces the people of British Isles stock, whom I should like to term Anglo-Saxon, which would include British nationals who are here as immigrants and those who have been here as their descendants for years, constitute 71 per cent of the population. The French make up 20 per cent, while other racial groups make up 9 per cent.
In the province of Quebec the French constitute 83 per cent; the Anglo-Saxons 12 per cent; other racial groups 5 per cent.
In Ontario the Anglo-Saxons are 73 per cent of the population; the French, 11 per cent; others 16 per cent.
In the western provinces, Anglo-Saxons 60 per cent; French 7 per cent; others 33 per cent.
I should like to put on Hansard the figures of total population, which are as follows:
British stock or	Anglo-Saxons	 6,709,685
French origin	 4,319,167
Germanic and northern races of Europe
grouped together	 1,167,286
Slavic origin	 784,312
All others	 1,078,979
It is interesting to note that when you separate the people whose origin was the British Isles and those whose origin was France you have represented in Canada at least 39 other racial groups. As I have said before, as I said last year, and as I am happy to repeat at the present time, we welcome to this country people of various races. We have noted with interest the rapidity with which they become good Canadian citizens and we are proud of the contribution they have made toward building up this country.
Continuing the survey, I looked at the immigration figures for the last 50 years and gave them in the remarks I made in the house last year. As they failed to be noticed I think they are worthy of repetition on this occasion. I am going to give the immigration figures in 10-year periods from 1900 to 1954, excluding those who came from the United States. In the period 1900-09 approximately 60 per cent of the immigrants entering Canada were of of British stock with all others, we find that the report calls them. In the period 1910-19 they constituted 60 per cent; in the period 1920-29, 56 per cent; 1930-39, 45 per cent; 1940-49, 60 per cent.
Looking back at the immigration figures over a period of 50 years and comparing those of British stock with all others, we find that more than 50 per cent of the total number of immigrants entering Canada came from the British Isles. Contrast that with the situation over the last six years. Again I am quoting from the reports that the department publishes. In 1949 the people of British origin numbered 36 per cent of the total

immigrants entering this country. Again I am leaving out those from the United States. These figures are not for the calendar years. The department gives them by the fiscal year which ends on March 31. Hence it is March 31, 1949 that I am referring to. In that year 36 per cent of British stock entered this country as immigrants; in 1950, the figure was 25 per cent; in 1951, 20 per cent; in 1952, 17 per cent; in 1953, 29 per cent; and for the eleven months of 1954-the figure for which we have recently been given-29 per cent. The average for that almost six-year period comes to 26 per cent. Of the immigrants entering Canada 26 per cent were British nationals or of Anglo-Saxon stock.
My contention is that a definite change of policy occurred in the year 1949, and that change in policy seems to have been carried on through the years that have followed. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), who became minister of citizenship and immigration on January 18, 1950, must accept responsibility for that policy. It was not the policy in earlier days. As we all know, there was great immigration into Canada in the period from 1908 to 1914 under the governments of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden. Those were the years in which the western country was filled up; and we think of those years as being the great years of immigration into Canada. But when you examine the figures for the period from 1908 to 1914 you find that, of the total number of immigrants coming in at that time, the people of British stock were in the majority. On a percentage basis they were 61 per cent of those who came in at that time.
When did the change occur? A marked change was shown from 1949 on, but the first elements in the change became obvious about the year 1925; and during that period, 1926 to March 31, 1931-while a new government had come into power, the immigration policy could not be altered overnight-44 per cent of the immigrants entering Canada were of British origin. Even then there was some slight change in the ethnic basis of our population.
The point that I tried to make last year, and the point that I stress again on this occasion is this: Why this change from the earlier days with regard to our policy of immigration? What is the purpose behind it? What is the long-term policy of the government? Do the figures in the last six years indicate the policy of the government? Are they ignoring the ethnic groups who made up this country in the beginning? Are they indifferent to the nature of this country for the future?

An interesting article along that line appeared in the Canadian Legionary of January, 1953. The writer of the article was Mr. Edward H. Gurton who had been European commissioner of immigration for the Canadian National Railways, for many years western colonization manager of the C.N.R. and retired in 1950. In his article he draws attention to the decline in British immigration to Canada which, as I say, started in 1925 and has now become marked since 1949. He forecast the population changes that would occur if the present immigration policy was pursued to the end of this century. He suggested that, by the end of this century, there will be a marked difference in the racial composition of Canada. From page 7 I shall quote this paragraph:
Assuming that present trends continue, with no radical change to modify them, we appear to be destined to have, by the end of this century, a population whose racial origins will approximate:-
British	French	Others32%	30%	38%
It is even possible that, with continued large-scale immigration of its current character, and unless the proportion of British people in it can be increased substantially from the approximate 20 per cent of the last four years, we may reach A.D. 2000 with less than 30 per cent of our people of British racial stock.
In addition to other matters that have been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill) today with regard to the administration of his department, I think that this problem of long-term policy deserves the most serious and careful consideration. We have seen Canada develop successfully. We have been dependent upon immigration in order to offset the loss of our population to the United States. We have welcomed with open arms people from many nationalities and racial groups throughout the world. I speak not at all in the mood of an exclusionist. I think that Canada has gained a great deal from the special aptitudes and skills and the special cultures that various racial groups have brought to this country. But is there not some advantage in retaining the ethnic basis or something approaching the ethnic basis with which we started at confederation in 1867? Even if we retain it at the present figure, we must have some plan.
I fail to understand what the former minister of citizenship and immigration was intending in his policy which I could not get him to define last year. I fail to understand what the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is intending because he has not defined with any clarity the long-term policy of his department. I should like to point out that with all the assistance we have received from the 39 other racial groups
Immigration
that have come to this country, nevertheless Canada was explored and developed by the French and the Anglo-Saxons. The early settlement of the Atlantic provinces, the settlement and clearing of Ontario, the settlement of the western provinces, all these were done very largely by people of Anglo-Saxon origin. Although in the great migration of 1908 to 1914 others came who assisted, the western plains had already been opened up by people moving from other parts of Canada who cleared the ground, tilled the soil and established settlements.
We sometimes overlook the fact that the basic work of opening up this country was done by the two great basic stocks who originated the country. If we are looking for immigrants, as we are, what better place is there to look for them than the British Isles? The people of the British Isles over the centuries stand second to none as explorers and colonizers. Other racial groups have produced intrepid explorers, other racial groups have attempted colonization, but none has achieved results on such an impressive scale as the Anglo-Saxons. They are the world's foremost pioneers, the world's most successful colonizers. Wherever they have gone they have cleared the land, tilled the soil, planted crops and established settlements. The whole North American continent bears the marks of their genius for colonization.
In Canada, as I have mentioned, they were the ones who carved Ontario out of the wilderness. They developed the western plains and crossed the Rockies. Other racial groups have made effective contributions to the development of this dominion, but in most of our provinces the pioneering was commenced and settlements established by immigrants from the British Isles and their descendants.
Therefore I urge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to take a second look at his policy and endeavour to attract to this country people from the British Isles in proportionate numbers to those who were attracted years ago. Why we should have reached the stage of receiving fewer people from the British Isles now than we did during the first 50 years of this century is not understandable at all.
In the last report of the department I notice that in their endeavour to obtain immigrants from the British Isles they have interviewed thousands of people there and on the continent other thousands. But let us take a comparison of the figures, and this is from page 29 of the department's report for 1954. They mention the fact that in the United Kingdom 202,551 office interviews were held and 49,863 medical cards were

Immigration
issued to British subjects, 24 per cent of those who were interviewed. On the continent of Europe they interviewed 284,000 people and issued 111,403 immigrant visas, 39 per cent of those who were interviewed on the continent.
I wonder why there should be that difference. I submit that the long-term policy of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is not clear, as has been stated in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I submit that the policy of May 1, 1947, as enunciated by the late Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, does not clearly establish that any attempt was being made then to maintain the racial groupings that were in effect in our country in the early days. I charge that from 1949 to the present time there has been a distinct change in the policy of immigration and that the emphasis has been on racial groups other than those from the British Isles. I think that a re-examination and a restatement of the long-term policy of immigration into Canada is desirable.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to hon. members for entering this debate at this stage, but I believe that some of the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon make it necessary for me to speak and deal with what he had to say as briefly as I can. I noticed that the hon. member got quite a good hand from the members of his own group with a reference during his speech to an appeal to Caesar. While in my case he may not have appealed to Caesar I think that in his best courtroom manner he did qualify me as an expert witness to deal with what I took to be a very important element of the basis upon which he established or attempted to establish the criticisms that he levelled at the department of immigration and its procedures.
I think it must be clear to all hon. members that the hon. member for Prince Albert and also the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) built their case on grounds of their own choosing. They selected the grounds on which they sought to justify the statements they were making. I think it is also clear to all hon. members that the lack of validity and the weakness of their case can best be judged by the fact that to make that case the hon. member for Prince Albert had to resort to attempts to confuse and even to misrepresent the nature and contents of the material on which he based his case.
I refer in particular to what the hon. member had to say in connection with a subcommittee of the civil liberties section of the

Canadian Bar Association on which I served for two years. I also believe that we can be confident that the hon. member for Prince Albert has sufficient training and experience as a lawyer that he can be relied upon to produce the best evidence available to him to support a case, so that when he chooses to use inexact evidence not founded on fact this in itself proves with reasonable certainty that he did not have valid and sound evidence on which to base his statements.
The hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Kamloops referred to the subcommittee to which I have made reference and stated the date on which the subcommittee was established and the membership of the subcommittee. Thus far they were correct, but from there on I am afraid they part company with the truth. In the first place, the hon. member for Prince Albert described the subcommittee as a subcommittee set up to inquire into the immigration department and immigration matters in general. When he made that assertion he had available to him a wealth of evidence which proves conclusively that such a statement is not correct and, in fact, is completely misleading. For example, he had before him the terms of reference of the subcommittee which in part were as follows:
That a subcommittee on immigration be established to review the administration of immigration laws and regulations with particular reference to the curtailments of the rights of Canadians . . .
I believe that satisfactorily excludes matters of general immigration. In addition the chairman of the subcommittee in a public statement handed to the press I believe on September 4 in Winnipeg, and which received considerable publicity, had this to say:
It has not been the function of the committee to act as a board of inquiry. It has not been within the committee's terms of reference nor has it been the purpose of the individual members of the committee to consider matters of immigration policy. Throughout this work the committee has been concerned only with the rights of Canadian citizens, which stem from the Immigration Act, and in particular section 3, subsection 1 thereof, which states "a Canadian citizen has the right to come into Canada".
In the second place, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prince Albert completely confused himself and the house with respect to the report made by this subcommittee in September of this year. The report itself was put on the record by the minister this afternoon; that was the full report. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in referring to the report mentioned criticism of the department and of government policy

which he said was implicit in this report. The minister, and I believe the minister is much more correct than the hon. member for Kamloops, labelled the report innocuous. He invited members opposite to show wherein it was critical.
Now, the hon. member for Prince Albert was not satisfied, as was the member for Kamloops, that criticism was implicit, and he attempted to comply with the invitation of the minister. He found he was unable to do so, and not being able to find justification in the report for the statements he was making, he went outside that report to other documents. He attempted to suggest, and even persisted under questioning by myself, that the documents to which he was referring formed a part of the report, and that these documents were accordingly made with the responsibility of the members of the committee. I state that any such impression is false and misleading. I propose to prove from the documents themselves that such an impression is false.
The hon. member for Prince Albert obviously had these documents in his possession when he was trying to create this impression. The text of the report itself which is before the house contains the following language, and I quote:
Mr. Taylor-
That is one of the members of the committee.
-has reviewed over 200 specific cases and has written four comprehensive reports on administrative procedures. These reports have been invaluable to the subcommittee and will form the basis for further study and representations. Copies of these reports are being filed with the chairman of the committee on civil liberties. However, the committee, and particularly Mr. Taylor, the author, believe that until such time as the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has had an opportunity of reviewing the detailed material contained in these reports, they should not be generally distributed.
That is what the report itself says with respect to the documents from which the hon. member for Prince Albert quoted while attempting to give the impression they were part of the report. Could anything, Mr. Speaker, be more clear than that these so-called reports were not part of the committee's report? The contents of these documents themselves further prove that the hon. member for Prince Albert really could not have misunderstood the situation. He had the reports. He waved them here in the house this afternoon.
Immigration
There are four of these reports and in paragraph 3 of the first one we find this:
This report is one of many to be submitted to the committee in order that the committee may draft a final report on the entire subject under review.
Each one of these documents contains a similar statement, and each of those documents is signed by one individual alone, Mr. John R. Taylor. I submit that these facts prove that the hon. member for Prince Albert had to go outside of the report to find any justification for the criticism that he was supposed to be basing on the subcommittee's report. I may say that these individual reports, in so far as they have been seen by me before they were filed with the committee chairman, were specifically and individually rejected by me as committee documents.
In so far as the report itself is concerned, and I would not deal with this except that I felt the hon. member for Prince Albert was laying some stress on the fact I had been a member of the committee, I saw a draft of a report which was sent to me by mail during the summer. I sent it back with corrections and suggestions about essential changes that should be made if any report were to be made.
I requested that if a report in final form were agreed upon it should be submitted to me before being filed or submitted to the committee on civil liberties. In fact, that was not done. The report was signed by the chairman himself, and in fairness to the chairman and to everybody else, it was clearly stated at the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Winnipeg that the report had been signed by the chairman only. Mr. Taylor was present to speak for himself; I was not present. I regarded this report, in so far as I saw it or had anything to do with drawing it up, as an interim report and I did not see the likelihood of it being put to political advantage. In that connection, apparently I forgot to consider the hon. member for Prince Albert.
The hon. member for Kamloops said that at Winnipeg the report became a hot political issue. I was not in Winnipeg, so I cannot judge except from what I am told. I understand one of the main causes for it becoming a hot political issue was that the hon. member for Prince Albert went out while the bar association convention was still going on and made a political speech at a political meeting based on the proceedings at the convention.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member no doubt knows that the deputy minister held a press conference in Winnipeg on the subject which was reported widely across Canada, long before there was any political meeting.

Immigration


John Horace Dickey: My information is that the hon. member for Prince Albert went out while the bar association was still meeting-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The deputy minister held his press conference while the bar association was still meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is ten o'clock, does the hon. member adjourned the debate?


Walter Edward Harris: May I intervene only to say that we are going to adjourn the debate but I gather from what the hon. member is saying that he is about to sum up, so perhaps we could have this speech completed before we adjourn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it embarrassing to the house leader?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman the consent of the house to carry on?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) does not give his consent.


Mr. Philpott:: I give my consent.


Some hon. Members:: How long?


John Horace Dickey: I appreciate the consideration of hon. members so I shall finish what I have to say very quickly. As I was saying, to sum up this particular matter with respect to the report, the fact is, in so far as the hon. member for Prince Albert or anyone else attaches particular significance to it because of my name being attached to it- that is the only reason I mentioned the subject-I may say I did not see the final draft. It did not carry my approval in the form in which it appeared, nor did I sign it. I want to repeat that I repudiate absolutely the other documents from which the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) attempted to quote, for which I had no responsibility and which, in large part,
I had not even seen before they were filed.
Mr. Speaker, the final point with which I wish to deal-and I believe it is important that I do so-is in connection with the assertion that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) who was then minister of citizenship and immigration refused to see this subcommittee. That statement is not in the report; nor, so far as I can find or discover, is it in any document emanating from any member of the committee, either as a member of the committee or in his personal capacity.

This statement did appear in a press report as an unidentified statement, and it did not come to my attention until several weeks after the meeting in Winnipeg was over. When it did come to my attention I immediately got in touch with the chairman of the subcommittee to discover how that impression had been given, and to arrange for a public denial of it. Any suggestion that the then minister of citizenship and immigration refused to see the committee, or in any way obstructed the committee in what it wanted to do, is absolutely without foundation. The chairman of the committee, when I got in touch with him, advised me that he was as mystified as I was, and that he was unable to trace the source of the statement. Since then I have also been unable to trace the source of it. I repeat it is completely unfounded; and any suggestion by hon. members opposite that there is any truth in it is quite incorrect.
I think I should also say that the question of seeing the minister was purely informal. We were not in any sense authorized to wait upon the minister and speak for the Canadian Bar Association, or anything of that nature. It was purely a matter of courtesy, and an attempt by members of the committee to get reliable information, and to secure the co-operation of the minister and the department. I must say the minister made sure that that co-operation was forthcoming.
In conclusion I do think I should say that the Canadian Bar Association has a long history in the study of legislation #of this parliament and of the provinces, and of studying the conduct of government in the administration of justice, and many other important fields of governmental activity. Never before, so far as I know, has anything done by the Canadian Bar Association been used as a vehicle for political controversy or argument. I do not think it should have been used as a vehicle for political controversy or argument in this connection; and if I had any part or responsibility for bringing that about, I certainly am sincerely sorry.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate the courtesy of the house in permitting me to finish, in a somewhat abbreviated form, the remarks I felt I should make, in the light of the quite unfounded and incorrect assertions the hon. member for Prince Albert included in his speech this afternoon.
On motion of Mr. Dinsdale the debate was adjourned.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 28

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, if I may have permission to revert to motions I would move:
That in relation to the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply, and on the amendment thereto, moved February 15, the provisions of standing oraer 28 be suspended for Friday, February 18, 1955.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue this debate tomorrow and, after it has been disposed of, we shall take the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) with respect to war veterans allowances.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

1279
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 18, 1955