1955-02-15

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from two members informing me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, viz.:
Of Robert Fair, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Battle River-Camrose, by decease.
Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the chief electoral officer to issue a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 124, to implement an agreement between Canada and Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give legal effect in Canada to the agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, which agreement was signed at Ottawa on October 28 last. This agreement, in line with similar agreements which we already have with the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France and Sweden, has as its purpose the avoidance of double taxation with respect to trading profits, and also dividends, interest and royalty payments flowing between Ireland and Canada. It systematizes taxes
imposed on other types of income, including salaries, pensions and annuities which might be taxable in both countries.
Provision is also made for tax credit and for the exchange of information. In addition, certain special provisions are made such as one which provides that profits from the operation of ships and aircraft will be taxed solely in the country of the residence of the operator, and another designed to foster cultural interests between the two countries which provides that professors or teachers from one country will be exempt from tax while visiting the other country for a period not exceeding two years. Students and apprentices from one country receiving education or training in the other country will be exempt from tax in that country on payments received from home for maintenance, education or training.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUCCESSION DUTY


James Joseph McCann: for leave to introduce Bill No. 125, to implement an agreement between Canada and Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to succession duty.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Joseph McCann: The purpose of this bill is to give legal effect in Canada to the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to duties on the estates of deceased persons. The agreement was signed at Ottawa on October 28 last.
This agreement is based on the principles established in the present succession duty agreements with the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The principal purpose of the agreement is to provide for a tax credit and for exchange of information.
The agreement provides that the country of domicile will allow a credit against its duty in respect of property taxed by both countries. The agreement also provides that the two countries will exchange information

Inquiries of the Ministry upon request so that each will be advised of the death of its domiciled decedents and of the composition of their estates.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
lLater:l



APPLICATION TO CERTAIN COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the government reached any agreements similar to those which he announced as having been reached between Canada and Ireland with countries other than those that he referred to in his remarks this afternoon?


James Joseph McCann: I think the list which I gave included them all, the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France and Sweden.



BLIND PERSONS ACT


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Blind Persons Act to lower the age for eligible recipients from 21 years to 18 years, and also to increase the maximum annual incomes allowed to recipients.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, of which I have given him notice.
Is the recent move of the Bank of Canada as announced yesterday to reduce the interest on loans to chartered banks from 2 per cent to 1J per cent a measure to make borrowing easier and is it expected by this monetary measure to stimulate business? Does this action of the bank represent government policy?	*>
*	.	i


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer will be quite short and I do not think I can do better than quote from the press release which was given out by the bank when they made the announcement. They said that the reason for the change in the bank rate was that the bank rate at the old level had ceased to bear a reasonable relationship to other shortterm interest rates.
With respect to whether this is government policy or not, I think I should answer that it is the policy of the Bank of Canada which is charged with the responsibility of making these decisions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the minister's first answer mean that the bank merely follows in the wake of business and does not seek to give a lead? Does the second answer mean that he does not agree with what the Minister of Finance and the governor of the bank said last year in the banking and commerce committee, viz., that the bank was under the control of the Department of Finance?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know the Bank of Canada has served the needs of the Canadian people excellently and well during the past years. I am content to leave to them decisions as to when these changes might be made, and whether they lead or whether they follow the business cycle, as my hon. friend has mentioned. With respect to his second question, of course I do not disagree with anything that was said by my predecessor on the occasion that he mentions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I point out that the minister has not answered my question as to whether this is a monetary measure by which it is hoped to stimulate business. The minister has not answered that.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure that I did by reading from the announcement which gave the reasons for making the change.



WHEAT-REFERENCE TO RECENT EXPORT FIGURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister care to comment on the figures released today by the dominion bureau of statistics showing a drop in Canada's exports of wheat during the first five months of this year by 15 million bushels and an increase in United States exports during the same period of 19 million bushels. Would the minister also comment on the statement in

today's wheat review that the Canadian export quantity of wheat for this year is likely to remain the same as last year while United States exports are likely to go up by 17 per cent.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The export figures are somewhat misleading. The total exports for the first six months were 2 million bushels less than for the first six months of last year. This result arises from the fact that last year we took into the crop year a carryover of about 38 million bushels of sales which had not been shipped, due partly to the grain elevator strike at Vancouver. That carryover of sales was counted in the shipments for the first six months. This year we had a carryover of only 11 million bushels, mainly out of Churchill. So we had a balance of sales from the previous year of about 27 million bushels to make up before we applied shipments against this year's sales.
While we do not give figures for sales, I can tell my hon. friend that sales are up this year and are much better than for the corresponding period last year. I do not know who is responsible for the statement that we expect our sales to be about even with last year. I expect them to be better than last year, and I know the wheat board expects them to be better.
For example, we have sold to the United Kingdom more wheat up to this time this year than we sold during the whole of last year; and the United Kingdom is still buying wheat. I do not know that I can add any more at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Am I to take it from the
minister's statement that he is saying that export clearances of wheat during the present year will be greater than last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes, during the crop year, yes.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I Should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the report in this morning's Montreal Gazette concerning the view of Mayor Drapeau of Montreal that when employment drops to the point where social welfare reaches the stage of permanent aid the matter becomes a national and not a municipal problem? In view of the seriousness of the problem of
Inquiries of the Ministry unemployment relief as it affects many cities across Canada, will the minister comment on this statement?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour);: Yes, I have noted the news dispatch referred to by my hon. friend. I can tell him that the point of view expressed in that news item, along with representations by other civic authorities, will receive full consideration.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether arrangements have been made for a committee of the cabinet to meet with a committee of the Saskatchewan government for the purpose of discussing the matter of the South Saskatchewan dam?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No arrangements have yet been made in that regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to meet the premier of Saskatchewan to discuss this subject?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is something I would prefer to discuss with the premier of Saskatchewan.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if his department has any plans to use the landing strips erected in connection with the D.E.W. line and radar defence stations for exploration and development work throughout our northern areas?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: To whatever extent it is possible.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the reduction in interest rates by the Bank of Canada, is it the intention

Inquiries of the Ministry ot the government to reduce interest rates in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing loans?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: All I can say is that if such decision is arrived at it will be announced in due course.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, based on a question he himself had raised in the house on a previous occasion. Has he been in touch with the premiers of the different provinces of Canada and is he considering a tentative date for the forthcoming federal-provincial conference to which he has already referred?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, no date has been set up to now.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for York West asked the following question:
Can the minister of national defence inform the house whether Canadian air carriers have sufficient freight aircraft of Canadian registry available to handle the airlift required in the construction of the D.E.W. line and the McGill fence?
As I think the question ought to have been addressed to me, with the consent of the house I should like to answer the hon. member. Airlift requirements in connection with construction of the northern and mid-Canada warning lines are being adjusted continuously from week to week and month to month. I cannot, therefore, give a categorical answer to the question. However, it is fully expected that all Canadian carriers, with suitable equipment for the purpose, will have an opportunity to participate in the airlift; but it is possible that assistance by military aircraft may also be needed.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. In connection with the use of military aircraft, will such aircraft be supplied by the R.C.A.F. or by the United States air force?


George Carlyle Marler: I believe that will depend on the circumstances. I am not able to answer as to which of the two air forces would carry out the airlift in question, but I imagine the R.C.A.F. would participate as well as the United States air force.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.



IMMIGRATION

Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first motion for committee of supply which has come before the house at this session, and thus it is the first opportunity the opposition has had to raise any specific grievance which we feel requires attention and action by the government before the motion is acceded to. We intend to take advantage of this opportunity to bring before the house and the government the situation which exists with respect to immigration policy.
This subject is one which we feel is, next to high taxation and unemployment, causing more dissatisfaction and concern in Canada today than any other subject. There is concern and dissatisfaction not only with respect to the over-all policy of the government relative to immigration, which indeed is difficult to determine, but also because of the practices of the government in administering that department, the result of which is to create injustices, hardship, and inequities.
The dissatisfaction is threefold. It arises first from the fact that the government does not speak with a clear and consistent voice with regard to immigration matters. Secondly, from the fact that the practices and policies of the government, as carried out by the immigration branch, are not in accordance with the best interests and needs of Canada. Thirdly, because these practices inflict injustice and bitter hardship on both Canadians and non-Canadians.
In presenting this case on behalf of the official opposition I have tried to summarize these complaints into a motion-perhaps it might be called a motion of censure-which we propose to move, and which for the sake of clarity and continuity of discussion I shall now read although I am not moving it at the present moment. We shall be moving:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "That" and substituting therefor the following:
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.

One of the reasons why it is both necessary and desirable to bring this matter before the house in this way is because of the government's handling of the subject in this house over the past few years. The handling of the subject by the government has effectively denied the house the opportunity of discussing, sensibly and coherently, the question of immigration and the government's policies and deficiencies in that regard.
For this situation there is, of course, no one who bears more responsibility than the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) who for the past three or four years was minister of citizenship and immigration.
As we have pointed out before, it has been the practice of the minister, who as house leader had charge of the day to day arrangements of the house and the responsibility for bringing forward the government business, to defer consideration of the estimates of his department until the last possible moment.
When we had the estimates of the department of immigration before us last session we had them for about half an hour on the next to last day, and for the final day of the session. At that time I summarized the inadequacy of the time which had been allotted to discussion of immigration policy over the past three years, and we made it perfectly clear during the discussion last year that the only reason why we did not insist upon taking more time to discuss immigration was because of the situation in which we were placed by the government bringing the estimates up on the last day, placing us in a situation in which all the arrangements had been made for the closing of the session, when it would have been nothing less than discourteous to His Excellency, who had been acquainted with these arrangements, if we had extended the debate. The government of course was well aware of that. They made arrangements for the closing of the session and they knew it would be impossible, under the circumstances in which they brought forward that department, to devote sufficient time to have the matter adequately ventilated.
We are bringing this motion forward, therefore, at this time because this affords the first opportunity of the session to have a discussion on this matter which the interests of the country demand, and also because it affords a discussion upon which the attention of all hon. members will be confined to the question of immigration and a decision of the house can then be taken. The matter can thus be laid before the house and the country in a co-ordinated and coherent manner.
The Minister of Finance, in seeking to indicate that the matter was not perhaps of
Immigration
such importance, commented that the opposition could not have considered it very important because they had not brought it up in the throne speech debate. But you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the throne speech debate, while important, does not afford an opportunity for continuous discussion of one matter only-a discussion which will be carried to completion on that subject and on which a decision can be taken.
And we are bringing the matter up now rather than waiting for it to go to the estimates committee because we feel this is a subject on which a discussion of government policy is necessary, rather than a discussion of details of expenditure. We are certainly concerned with the details of expenditure in regard to this department, but we are even more concerned with administration and the policy of the government.
I think I should perhaps say by way of observation that it is our understanding that the main purpose in setting up the estimates committee is so that the details of expenditure may be examined. That is essential. But as we understand it, it is not the intention or the purpose to afford in that committee the opportunity for policy discussion such as is afforded here in the house.
I might say in addition that we are a little bit suspicious that, if we were to leave it to the estimates committee-and we have been told that there is to be no policy discussion when the estimates are referred to that committee-and our suspicion is based on the record of past performance of the government, it might just "accidentally" happen that that department was the last one to be considered in the estimates committee; that it might just "accidentally" happen that that was the last department reported back to the house; and that it might just "coincidentally" be that that report was not made until the last day of the session and we would find ourselves in the same position as that in which we have been placed over the past three or four years.
For that reason we are bringing the matter on at this the first opportunity for raising it as a grievance, because it is a grievance, Mr. Speaker; it is a matter causing the greatest of concern to the people of Canada as a result of the disclosures made last fall in Winnipeg and as a result of the failure of the government to lay before the house and the country a clear and consistent picture of its immigration policy over the past years.
The house will appreciate that the motion which I have already outlined consists of three main branches. The first one deals with the fact that the government's policy is not clear, consistent or co-ordinated. As

Immigration
evidence of this criticism, I would refer the house to the contradictory statements made from time to time by government ministers in connection with the subject of immigration. It is a repetition of the pattern to which we have objected on other occasions. In an apparent desire to please all shades of opinion, the government will have one minister go into one part of the country and make a statement the effect of which is to create an impression that they are all in favour of all-out immigration, while another minister in another part of the country makes a statement which creates the impression that the government's immigration policy is one of cautious restriction.
It is another case of the government trying to be all things to all men. It is a pattern, however, which is or should be subject to the strongest criticism because it is a complete denial of the principles of cabinet solidarity and of responsible government, the principles which demand that the government should speak with one voice on the issues and policies of the day in order that the people themselves through their parliament may hold the government accountable for a definite policy and may conduct its examination of government activities in the knowledge of what is government policy.
But here just in the last short while we have seen another example of the almost complete contradiction between different government statements. I have in my hand a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press and another one from the Ottawa Citizen, both dated January 28, 1955; both papers are of the same day. The article in the Winnipeg Free Press reports a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in Winnipeg, in which speech the minister referred to the question of immigration and asked certain questions, the only implication of which is that he is in favour of an all-out immigration policy. Discussing policy, he asked this:
Is it to refuse to admit population to develop our resources for fear they may soon be depleted and we ourselves become unemployed?
Or is it to go full steam ahead as we did at the beginning of the century, which policy was interrupted by two world wars?
Of course the impression created in the minds of his listeners and in the mind of anyone reading the statement is that the Minister of Agriculture is saying that the policy is full steam ahead but that it has unfortunately been interrupted by two world wars. In the article in the other paper appearing on the same date the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) is reported as having made a speech to the Ottawa West Liberal Association in which,

discussing matters of immigration, he laid stress upon the necessity for caution and restriction. The headline is:
Limit to Number of Immigrants Canada can Safely Absorb, Pickersgill tells Liberal Meeting
Mr. Rowes Are they both the same day?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am asked whether they were both made on the same day. The Winnipeg Free Press article is not datelined but it appears in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 28. The other article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of January 28. They are both reporting speeches made on that immediate occasion by the two different ministers.
As I say, that is the latest example. These examples could, of course, be multiplied. There are differences between statements made in the past by the minister of citizenship and immigration of that day and now Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and the statements being made then by the Minister of Agriculture. I could multiply the examples. We have the former minister of citizenship and immigration, speaking oni one occasion, talking of Canada's necessity to have a population of 26 million by 1975-a target, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, which is going to be much in excess of the actual number if the present policy is continued-while on the other hand the present minister says that we must be cautious and go slow.
There is therefore ample justification for the criticism of the government that its policy is not clear or consistent. That policy is not co-ordinated either. We have evidence of the fact that there does not exist a sufficient degree of co-ordination between the government's policies with respect to industrial expansion and the promotion of the development of Canada's resources in Canada and for the benefit of Canada first,, and their policy of bringing in new citizens, new settlers, new Canadians to take part in and to be given opportunities of employment by that process of growth and expansion. Nor is there sufficient co-ordination, on the evidence that we have, between the activities of the immigration officials and the activities of the officials of the Department of Labour. Some of my colleagues, speaking in the course of this debate, will be giving some examples of the lack of co-ordination in that respect.
In the second place, we say that the government's policy is not in conformity with the needs and responsibilities of Canada. The-needs of this country for more people are undisputed, Mr. Speaker, as can be seen by reference to statements made by spokesmen for government, business and labour. Some-

of them I have referred to already. There is the statement of the Minister of Finance when he was minister of citizenship and immigration, in a speech he made at St. Catharines on January 30, 1953 in which he is quoted as follows:
Why is immigration necessary? Mr. Harris explained that natural increase is not sufficient to provide manpower for Canada's expanding industries.
That was a report appearing in the St. Catharines Standard of January 30, 1953. The need for more people is supported also by the statements made by chambers of commerce. In a recent comprehensive survey made by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce this subject received exhaustive treatment. The need for more people is also supported by the statements of labour leaders and by the recent policy declarations of the Canadian Congress of Labour. I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of June 12, 1953 which is headed:
Millard-
That is referring to Mr. C. H. Millard.
-urges Canada take more immigrants.
The report in detail of a speech made by Mr. Millard at Smiths Falls contains these summaries:
Europe has a surplus population of 5 million people and it would be "callous" for Canada to refuse to accept its share of them as immigrants, C. H. Millard. Canadian director of the United Steelworkers of America, told the third annual banquet of stewards and executives of steelworkers local 3140 . . .
Then Mr. Millard is quoted as saying:
"Our forefathers came to Canada as a land of opportunity", Mr. Millard said. "Why should we deny the same right to others?" This country has too much "waste space" and its present population does not correspond to its potential.
A summary of the C.C.L. 12-point program to boost employment, which appeared in the Windsor Daily Star of September 29, 1954, contains the following as point 8:
A planned immigration policy based on the country's capacity to absorb immigrants in an expanding economy without lowering the standard of living.
So, as I say, the proposition that Canada needs more people is undisputed and is supported by statements made by government spokesmen, chamber of commerce spokesmen and by labour leaders themselves. At this time I think it might be appropriate to say something which I am sure will meet the approval of members of all parties in the house, namely, that we should pay a real tribute to the contributions made to both the cultural and economic development of this country by those who have been admitted to Canada as immigrants. Not only is the need
Immigration
of Canada for more people undisputed but the fact that the people who have come here have made a tremendous contribution to our growth, culturally and economically, is equally undisputed, and that in itself establishes in return our need for more people of this type.
It is also a fact that many other countries have too many people. Mr. Millard referred to the surplus population of Europe. Of course no one is advocating a limitless policy of absorbing limitless numbers of people without being in any degree selective, but one has only to look at the population of Europe and of the United Kingdom itself to find support, and reference to statements made in the United Kingdom, for instance, establishes that there is a surplus of population which has been estimated to be as high as 7 million people.
The fact that we need people, and that other countries have a surplus, raises a serious question. Can Canada morally or physically pursue an unduly restrictive policy with respect to immigration? Yet notwithstanding the background of these facts and the implications of that question, we find that the record shows that the government is steadily reducing the number of immigrants coming to Canada in each year. I have here a table provided me recently by the director of immigration and taken from the departmental records. It shows that from a high of 194,000 immigrants in the year 1951 there has been a steady reduction. There were 164,000 in 1952, a slight increase to 168,000 in 1953, and 146,000 for the first eleven months of 1954. I understand it is anticipated that the total for 1954 will reach just over 150,000 and that the figure for this year will certainly not be more than 150,000 on the basis of present indications. Therefore the trend of the government's policy is toward a steady reduction in the number of people coming to Canada.
It must be recognized, Mr. Speaker, that the argument is frequently raised that immigration tends to increase unemployment and to aggravate the employment problem in Canada. Now in making our criticism of government policy we do accept the necessity for planning of immigration. We accept the necessity for seasonal planning in order that immigration activities will be so co-ordinated with the employment picture in Canada that when there are times of rising unemployment immigration will taper off.
With respect to this criticism of government policy that I am making, I think I should say in fairness that this is one aspect of government policy over the last few years where they are entitled to some measure of praise because the figures show that in the last

Immigration
three years, when there has been a tendency to increased unemployment in the winter months, the stream of immigration has very definitely declined. That necessity we do accept. We accept seasonal co-ordination and planning of immigration but what we do not accept is the general argument that immigration in the over-all picture lessens opportunities for employment. Our belief is that a planned, vigorous policy of selective immigration to bring in more people is in keeping with the best interests of all sections of our country and of our people. We believe that the government's present pessimistic policy of reduction, this planning for a little Canada, is to be strongly condemned.
We also believe that immigration policies and activities, in addition to taking account of seasonal trends as I have already said, must be co-ordinated and go hand in hand with sensible fiscal and economic policies which will create a climate for expansion and thus create continued and increasing opportunities for Canadians now here and for those who come in the future. There again the government of course is open to the strongest of criticism because its fiscal and economic policies seem designed not so much to promote increasing opportunities for Canadians in Canada as to promote increasing opportunities for those in other countries to manufacture and process our raw materials. But given the factors I have mentioned in a sensible, vigorous and co-ordinated immigration policy-and we say the government is to be condemned for failing to bring about these factors-given these things, the best statistical evidence available convinces us that Canada can absorb more and not less people without any adverse effect on employment, and that in fact such a policy will increase opportunities for employment in the long run. But we emphasize again that plans must be laid now with respect to co-ordinated policies of economic development, processing of natural resources and housing so that we will be prepared for the situation and will be able to absorb these people without hardship when they are brought to our country.
In support of the statements I have just made I should like to place on the record a summary of some research that has been done recently into the question of the relationship between immigration and employment and into the question of the extent to which immigration may in fact have the effect of increasing opportunities for employment rather than the opposite.
In a radio broadcast made in August, 1954, the chief of information services of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration said that the approximately 500,000 working

immigrants who had arrived in Canada since the end of the war had a total annual buying power somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. This is a permanent annual increase in consumer purchasing power of about $2,000 per immigrant worker. If we assume that half of the 211,220 immigrants who entered Canada between April 1, 1951, and March 31, 1952, were workers, the assumption that half of them were workers being based on the proportion of workers brought in in 1954, and that each of them added $2,000 in purchasing power annually through the income that he earned and spent to meet the needs of his family, then the question arises, what contribution did this represent to the total national increase in consumer spending and saving during that year?
The answer to that question will give some idea of the relative importance of immigrant consumption to the growth of consumption in the country as a whole. These 105,610 workers at $2,000 each would add a total of $211,220,000 of purchasing power in that year. The total of personal purchases of goods and services, plus personal savings, for the calendar year 1952 was $14 billion, and $1-5 billion of savings, or a total of $15,753 million. The increase in 1952 over the previous year was $15,753 million less $14,633 million for the previous year, or an increase in consumer purchasing plus savings of $1,070 million. Expressed as a percentage of this total increase, the total income spent and saved by immigrants for that year amounted to about 20 per cent. This is a sizeable contribution in one year to the growth of Canadian consumer spending.
We find further interesting figures, based in part on the statement made by the director of information of the department, to the effect that on arriving in this country many of the immigrants in recent years have brought sizeable amounts of cash with them. We should not think of immigrants only as people who come here without a cent in their pockets. Between January 1946 and December 1953, immigrants brought in an estimated total in cash of $415 million, or an average of approximately $425 per immigrant. In 1953 alone, the total is reported to have been $75 million or, in round figures, about $450 per immigrant.
While much of this cash may have been used for consumption immediately on arrival, immigrants have in one way or another contributed very largely to the investment in Canadian industry, frequently establishing entirely new enterprises. Between 1949 and 1954, in Ontario alone, 350 new firms were established by immigrants. The chief of the

information service, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, referred in his address to one immigrant-owned firm in Canada that is employing more than 4,000 people, and noted that those employing 100 or more are far from unusual. Small businesses established by immigrants employing from one to 30 or 40 workers can be found in almost all parts of the country.
In these facts we find support for our submission that, given the factors I mentioned earlier-and we say it is the responsibility of the government to produce the climate in which these factors will prevail-statistical evidence convinces us that in the long run Canada can absorb more and not less people without any adverse effect on employment. In the long run, such a policy will increase opportunities for employment in Canada.
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. We have referred to this subject before, and have made it clear then, as we do now, that 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. But we do criticize the government for failure to put sufficient emphasis on or pay due attention to this potential source of most desirable immigrants. 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.
The figures in this respect are interesting. They show a change in the pattern. I am just going to place some of them on the record. Taking the years from 1950 to 1954 inclusive, the figures establish that British immigration has been on some occasions as low as one-sixth of the total immigration into Canada during a year. It does not average more than 25 per cent of the total immigrants into Canada in the post-war period. Others who will be taking part in this debate will be laying before the house some details of the government's shortcomings in this respect. I want to lay before the house the general picture.
I know that the government has sometimes said that they cannot obtain desirable immigrants from the United Kingdom. They plead in defence that it is not their fault; that they are not placing any obstacles in
Immigration
the way, but just cannot obtain a sufficient number of desirable immigrants from the United Kingdom. When for instance we criticize the government for not taking advantage of the various assisted passage schemes which are available, they say sometimes that does not produce desirable immigrants. They say also, "After all, the assisted passage scheme we do have is not taken advantage of by United Kingdom immigrants to the same extent as it is by others, and that is not our fault." There are definite factors which make it more difficult for prospective immigrants from the United Kingdom to take advantage of that scheme. As we have said before the government is to be criticized for not taking action on those factors to make it easier for United Kingdom immigrants to take advantage of the schemes.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question, purely to elicit information. I was not clear as to the assisted passage scheme to which he was referring. Was it the Canadian government loan scheme?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is the Canadian government loan scheme which, as I was just saying, for a number of reasons, is not as readily available or as attractive to prospective immigrants from the United Kingdom as it is to immigrants from elsewhere. Modifications in the scheme would remedy that situation. There is also the commonwealth scheme for assisted emigration from the United Kingdom, to which this government has refused to become a party although the commonwealth of Australia is taking full advantage of that scheme.
When discussing this matter with the minister and others on previous occasions, their answer has been that if we go out to attract immigrants from the United Kingdom in the same way as we try to attract immigrants from other countries we will not get desirable immigrants. This argument is entirely refuted by the experience of Australia. I have here some figures on the volume of British immigration into Australia and New Zealand over the past few years. From 1946 to 1953 inclusive, there were 390,623 immigrants into Australia from the United Kingdom. There was a peak of 73,586 in the year 1951, and that compares with the peak of 46,791 coming to Canada in the year 1953. In the period 1947 to 1953 inclusive there were 60,782 United Kingdom immigrants into New Zealand. It is interesting to note when this government says that desirable immigrants from the United Kingdom are not available, that in the period


John Whitney Pickersgill: 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.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 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. He believes that it is necessary to lay down the rights of Canadian citizens by some statute before they have any rights. 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. 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.
We submit that there are rights attaching to landed immigrants, people lawfully admitted to Canada and lawfully in Canada in the process of acquiring Canadian citizenship. For instance, they should not be deported or have their application turned down without reference to their rights and to their position as lawfully admitted persons in the process of acquiring citizenship. If then there are, as in fact there are, rights in this field, there must be, we say, a means by which those rights can be asserted, and the question whether or not a decision of one of the departmental officials to whom this enormous discretion is given denies the rights should be heard and determined by some judicial or semi-judicial process.
This attitude on our part is not new. We indicated it in the discussion last session. We have indicated it on previous occasions. Our feeling is that some amendments should be made to the act so that the right to appeal is recognized, and the discretionary and arbitrary practices which amount to a denial of rights can be dealt with on a legal and orderly basis and so that the rights inherent
Immigration
in Canadian citizenship can be protected and asserted. I referred to the matter myself at the last session. The leader of this party, in a very forceful speech, made statements to that effect and he quoted from an article in Toronto Saturday Night which is so apt that I shall place it on the record again in this context. In Toronto Saturday Night of May 22, 1954, it was stated editorially that:
The present Immigration Act obviously confers arbitrary powers on petty officials and leaves much too much room for discriminatory, unfair treatment of visitors and settlers. It is up to Mr. Harris to present to parliament amendments to the act which will make it a clear, just vehicle for the regulation of immigration-and at the same time to ensure that his department is organized to apply the regulations with courtesy and reason.
We referred to the irregularities which had been revealed in the practices and administration of the department, to the various cases of hardship and injustice, and to findings within the courts themselves wherein judges had criticized vigorously the administrative practices of the department as being a denial of elementary justice and a denial of reason. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Leong Ba Chai case was that there are rights attaching to this subject of immigration and immigration applications.
We referred to this at the last session and on previous occasions as reinforcing the view that when reasons for decisions do not have to be given, as the government maintains that they do not, and when ministerial discretion, which means, in the nature of things, departmental discretion, is the sole arbiter, then error, corruption, favouritism and injustice are invited and rights and liberties are denied in principle as well as in fact.
These views, which have been stated on many previous occasions, received almost a startling but a most gratifying degree of confirmation in the findings of the subcommittee of the committee on civil liberties of the Canadian Bar Association, which findings were made in Winnipeg in September of last year. At this stage I should like to summarize the recommendations of the subcommittee based upon their preliminary investigation of the situation in the department itself.
Perhaps at this point I should state for the record that the subcommittee consisted of John H. McDonald of Ottawa, chairman; John H. Dickey, M.P. of Halifax; and John R. Taylor of Vancouver as members. The committee report reads in part:
A copy of the 1953 report (P. 162 Vol. 36 C.B.A. Proceedings) was forwarded to the minister of citizenship and immigration and on June 30, 1954, the committee attended upon the minister and further recommended:

Immigration
(a)	Possible codification of regulations issued by your department.
(b)	Publications of intra departmental directives -particularly instructions to field officers as to the application or 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.
The subcommittee had pointed out earlier that in its 1953 report it recommended certain administrative reforms within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the creation of an immigration appeal board on a judicial and legal concept.
I should like to emphasize that these findings, and the criticisms inherent in these findings and recommendations, are based on cases which were studied by the subcommittee and which occurred when the present Minister of Finance was minister of citizenship and immigration. These were cases of injustice and hardship resulting from practices and policies for which he was responsible but which he refused to alter or review in spite of repeated urgings by ourselves and others. The Minister of Finance must take full responsibility for the mess in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, a mess which drew such criticism from the bar association and from newspapers of all shades of political opinion from one end of the country to the other.
I submit to you that in all reason and in accordance with proper practices the existence of such a mess and the refusal of the minister to deal with it would call for the resignation of the minister who had condoned those practices. This is a situation which is not taken care of by the simple device of transferring the minister from one department to another within the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be coming to the hon. gentleman in a moment. I am sure he will be much more anxious to ask questions when I have dealt with him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question relates to what the hon. gentleman has just said.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question is this: Would the hon. gentleman quote the decision of the Canadian Bar Association to which he has just referred and not the rejected report of a subcommittee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I used the words "decision of the Canadian Bar Association" I am glad to correct that. I made it clear earlier when I first introduced this subject that I was quoting the report of the subcommittee of the committee on civil liberties of the Canadian Bar Association. The report was made to the committee and was presented by that committee to the council of the bar association.


Walter Edward Harris: Just for the record, go on and tell what happened to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was not rejected. I thought the minister would try to take refuge in that. The report was not rejected. The report became a very heated political issue, quite true, and-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not with the bar association.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I understand the situation as it was reported to me, the bar association did not want to get involved in any political issue and the bar association council recommended that the matter be referred back to the subcommittee for their further study and consideration. I have no hesitation in placing these facts on the record because I was not referring to this as the full report of the Canadian Bar Association. This was a report by a subcommittee of one of their committees made after two years of study and investigation. That subcommittee consisted of a barrister in private practice in Vancouver, the son of a Conservative it is true but not himself active in politics; a Liberal lawyer here in Ottawa, who was a candidate for the Liberal party in the last federal election and the one before that, and an official of the Liberal organization. The other member was the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production and who is I imagine perhaps the strongest Liberal of all three, strong that is in his adherence to the party. I do not mean in his contributions.
It must be emphasized incidentally that not one of these findings or recommendations has been refuted or denied. I repeat that under ordinary circumstances when a situation such as this is exposed the minister who is responsible, particularly when he refuses to deal with or improve the situation after it has been drawn to his attention, would in accordance with ordinary principles of responsibility be called upon to resign.

Unfortunately for him the present minister has inherited this mess, but I suggest that it is absolutely incumbent upon him to clear up the situation. He has shown no signs of doing so. I think there are some quotations or statements in this regard which might be rather interesting. Saturday Night of September 25, 1954, makes a comment with which I agree with respect to the report to which I have referred. It states:
The only conclusion is that when the Hon. Walter Harris made his recent move from the immigration ministry to finance, he left a mess behind him. His failure to straighten out his former department is not a glowing promise of success in his present, more difficult job.
Then perhaps we might be permitted to hope that if the Minister of Finance, as he now is, has done nothing, at least his successor would show an inclination, indeed a determination to clean up the mess. But the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) has shown no inclination to accept his responsibility to improve the situation. He did say some months ago that the reports were being studied, but the Winnipeg Tribune of November 26, 1954, states this:
But when Mr. Pickersgill was in Manitoba early this month taking part in the Selkirk by-election he stated that he was taking no action on the charges because he had not officially received a report from the bar association committee.
The minister's attitude is apparently reflected in the attitude of the deputy minister who said on September 2, 1954, that no changes were contemplated in the procedure followed by the overseas officers of the federal department, which came under considerable criticism at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association.
The necessity for the minister to take some action to improve the situation in his department is, I believe, obvious from the very serious nature of the criticism made by the bar association subcommittee, which made a summary of some of the cases. I will briefly outline the nature of some of these cases.
The cases were summarized by Mr. McDonald, chairman of the subcommittee, in an interview he gave in Winnipeg and as reported by the Canadian Press on September 2. Some of the points he made are as follows:
That in countless incidents Canadians trying to return from abroad were delayed by the immigration department anywhere up to five years. They appear at an overseas immigration office with their birth certificates. An inspector simply tells them he doesn't believe they are the person named on the certificate. Then he tells them goodbye. They have no recourse to the courts.
The inspectors themselves are not clear on what authority they have for their actions. The west coast inspectors are determining some cases on
Immigration
the basis of a statement made in the Commons by the minister. They have nothing else to go on.
At overseas ports Canadians are refused representation by counsel. The Hong Kong office bears the sign "no agents allowed". The department refers to lawyers as "agents".
When a lawyer writes the department on behalf of a client, the department habitually writes directly to the client, sidestepping his counsel.


Mr. Dickey:: Would the hon. member be good enough to identify the document from which he is now quoting?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot understand why hon. gentlemen opposite are so suddenly hard of hearing when criticism is directed against them. I said this was a Canadian Press report from Winnipeg dated September 2 and it summarized a press interview given by Mr. McDonald, chairman of the subcommittee. The report continues:
That, on occasion, the department has advised clients to deal directly with the department and dismiss their counsel.
These are some of the points made by Mr. McDonald in substantiation of the subcommittee's criticisms.
Now, let us look at what this department does when it gets an adverse ruling in the courts. I have referred to the case of Leong Ba Chai in which there was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. After being in Canada for some time a Chinese gentleman applied for the admission of his son from China, and when the department refused, his counsel insisted that the matter be referred to the courts. The question of the admissibility of the son was referred to the courts and they upheld the submission. The court held that the son was admissible within the definition of the regulations.


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. If the hon. member does not agree with my interpretation he can make his own remarks in his own time.
Here is a report in the Vancouver Sun- a paper not hostile to the government-dated December 10, 1954:
A Canadian citizen, whose right to bring his 20-year old son from China to Vancouver was upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada nine [DOT] months ago, is still awaiting an entry visa for the boy.
The supreme court decision came December 28, 1953, as a climax to a three-year battle with the Canadian immigration department fought by Leong Hung Hing, an elderly chef in a Vancouver chop suey house.
Today the visa application is "still under investigation", despite the fact that most immigrants get cleared for entry in a matter of a few weeks.

Immigration
Immigration officials here refused to comment on the matter and said they were "sworn to secrecy."
Therefore, the government first of all is delaying in allowing this right to this boy, who has had his rights determined in the highest court in the land. Then what do they do? Not satisfied in their attempt first to deny the rights of the boy, they try to keep the case out of court. Finally, this persistent counsel on behalf of the applicant goes to court and the department gets an adverse decision. The decision of the court was in effect: "You cannot deny the rights of Canadians who assert that their sons are their legal sons and are entitled to entry into Canada."
The government then passes an order in council which would have the effect of wiping out the court's decision, so making it impossible for such a decision to be reached in any future cases. They do not have the courage to lay the matter before parliament or the country. They pass an order in council which would have the effect of negating the decision of the court.
I would now like to refer to a report in the Vancouver Province for October 15, 1954, which reads as follows:
The change in immigration department regulations, announced Wednesday in the current issue of Canada Gazette, states Asiatic children may take up residence in Canada only if they are legitimate according to Canadian law.
But lawyer Dave Moffett, who has handled many Asiatic cases, declared today the original order in council defined these admissible children as "children who are issue of lawful wedlock, according to Canadian law."
Referring to the effect of the new order in council he said:
"This means any Canadian citizen who legally adopts a child in China must say goodbye to it when he returns here."
It is estimated that the effect of the order in council is to deny rights of entry to at least 150 children of Canadian citizens who would have been admissible under the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada had the government not resorted to the order in council method of trying to frustrate the effect of the decision of the court.
I can multiply these examples of arbitrary action on the part of the government, Mr. Speaker, but enough has been said in the press and will be said by others in the course of the debate to make that course unnecessary.
There is certainly adequate evidence to confirm and support the statement that the government, which has embarked on the principle of arbitrary policies with respect to the administration of immigration, is stubbornly and arrogantly determined to adhere

to that policy notwithstanding the findings of the court and the recommendations made by the bar subcommittee and many interested and responsible organizations.
No subject has aroused more universal comment and more widespread demands for a thorough reform of the over-all policy. But the most disturbing factor of all is the indication so far that the government and the minister are nevertheless determined to let this storm die down and ride the matter out in accordance with their repeated and continued habit of showing a disregard of the principle of ministerial responsibility, a disregard for the principle of elementary justice, and a disregard for the principle of the rights of Canadians.
In the face of these facts, we feel this matter must be aired now in the House of Commons. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house as a whole that this parliament is entitled to receive from the present minister the most complete assurances that this situation will be rectified and that the necessary amendments with respect to departmental procedure and the Immigration Act itself will be brought in so that such instances shall no longer occur.
Otherwise I say again to you, sir, and I say it in all seriousness, that stubborn refusal on the part of the government to pay any attention to well-founded criticism in this regard, a stubborn refusal to budge, would be a complete justification for the normal course of demanding the resignation of the minister. Unless we obtain such adequate assurances of effective action, I am satisfied this house and the country in general will support the details of the motion I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "That" and substituting therefor the following:
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.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this debate on the subject of immigration and we shall support the amendment. In doing so I want to make it quite clear that I am not in any way attempting to criticize the hon. gentlemen who try to administer the government's immigration policy. As a matter of fact, in my opinion the department of immigration has become, over the years, nothing but a jungle of overgrowth and undergrowth composed of orders in council, rules and regulations and red tape to such an extent that it has become impossible for any hon. gentleman effectively to administer

that department. What is needed is someone to go into that department with a good sharp axe and do a good clean-up job on the orders in council, regulations and red tape that have accumulated there over the years.
The debate serves to show the anomaly which exists in our immigration policy. On the one hand, everybody who is interested in immigration and who has given any study to the subject is agreed that Canada needs immigrants. Every after-dinner speaker tells us that we need anywhere from 25 million to 250 million more people in Canada. I suppose the number depends upon what the afterdinner speaker has taken immediately before he makes the statement.
With our wide and expansive country, our natural resources and our vast transportation systems which are serving to burden down this relatively small population we have in Canada, we are all satisfied that there is in this country opportunity for increased immigration and that a larger influx of immigrants would be in the best national interests of the country. All labour congresses and groups are agreed on that point. I think most social service organizations across the country are agreed on it. But just as soon as we have begun to increase the influx of immigrants, we find unemployment developing here and there and we find housing overcrowded. Then we find a great many people beginning to blame all our troubles on the immigrants. I suppose there is not a member in this house from an industrial centre who has not at various times heard constituents complain of the fact that immigrants are crowding them out of their jobs, crowding native Canadians or former immigrants out of their jobs, and crowding Canadians out of their housing accommodation. That situation in itself is not in the best interests of Canada. A country such as Canada, needing immigrants as we need them, cannot very well stand the anomalous position in which we find ourselves, where just as soon as we begin to step up the influx of immigrants we have wholesale criticism with regard to these immigrants taking the places and the opportunities of Canadians.
I am going to pass on to the minister some criticism. I do so not by way of criticism of himself as an administrator of a department but just as criticism I have heard from new immigrants and others interested in immigration. I shall pass it on to the minister and the government, not that I have any hope or expectation that what I have to say will have the slightest effect upon government policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You can never be sure.
Immigration
Mr. Nose worthy: I think those on this side of the house have long ago resigned themselves to the realization that nothing much that we say on this side of the house can penetrate the iron curtain which divides this side from the other side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought the C.C.F. said they were responsible for all our policies.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I shall pass it on, however, in the hope that it will at least cause someone in that department to review some of that jungle of regulations, orders in council and red tape that has tied that department up into knots.
One of the most frequently repeated criticisms I have heard from the immigrants themselves is with regard to the extent to which Canada is misrepresented to them in their homeland by those who are interested in bringing them to Canada. There is some indication that in the past some of that misrepresentation has come from employees or representatives of the government's own department. There is much more indication that the misrepresentation is done by transportation companies, by companies that are interested in drumming up passage trade between the old world and the new, and by employers seeking in the markets of the old world cheap employment for Canadian industry. I do not know what steps the government is taking but I am sure it would be in the interests of the department if the minister would tell us just what steps are being taken to ensure that immigrants coming to this country are given a fairly realistic and good picture of what conditions are.


Walter Edward Harris: May I interrupt my hon. friend just to say that on every occasion on which this question has been brought up in the house on the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, I investigated every case that was mentioned; I gave the assurance that they would be followed through, and directions have been given to all the officers abroad to bear in mind what has been said along the line of what my hon. friend is now saying.


Joseph William Noseworthy: All I can say to the minister in reply is that there is still need for a continuation of that work or a continuation of every effort that the government can possibly put forth to see that Canada is not misrepresented and that the opportunities in this country are not misrepresented to the immigrants who come to our shores.
There is another point on which I want to make a few suggestions. I refer to the manner in which immigrants are checked for security reasons. Apparently the checking of immigrants for security reasons is done

Immigration
by the R.C.M.P. rather than by officials of the department of immigration. What is true is that immigrants are tried and condemned without even knowing that their trial is taking place. Somehow the immigration authorities are informed that the immigrant is undesirable. The immigrant is given no opportunity whatever to learn what the charges against him are, who has made the charges or to defend himself against them. In fact it is the admitted policy of the government to withhold such information from everyone, including members of parliament.
I defy any member of parliament, unless he can secure a special favour from the minister or some official, to find out, in the case of an immigrant who has been barred for security reasons, what the evidence is against him or by whom the charges were made. I have a case at the present time with which the minister is familiar. It concerns a man who came to this country long before the second world war from one of the countries now behind the iron curtain. He became a Canadian citizen before the second world war and enlisted with the Canadian forces at the outbreak of the war. Because of his knowledge of European languages the Canadian military authorities recommended that he be transferred to the British overseas service, and he was used by the British intelligence service in Egypt and in a number of other campaigns elsewhere during the second world war.
Recently this man has attempted to bring his new wife to Canada, a woman whom I am told he has known since childhood and whom he married recently. She cannot be admitted to Canada. The first reason given to him was that the government had no facilities in that man's country of origin for processing the application for admission. When I tracked the matter down and insisted that there must be some way of processing applications for admission from that country because I personally knew of numbers of people who had come from that country and whose applications had been processed in that country, the information was vouchsafed that this woman could not come here because there were charges against her.
Neither the woman nor her husband nor her representative in parliament has any knowledge of what these charges are, and in cases such as this one it is not the policy of the government to divulge the nature of any such charges. I submit that some consideration should be given to the way in which these cases are handled. It does seem to me to be rather undemocratic that some police officer

should lodge a complaint against a would-be immigrant concerning which the would-be immigrant has no knowledge whatsoever, can secure no knowledge whatever as to the charge and is given no opportunity of defending himself or herself.
Another complaint that I have heard from immigrants is that there is a tendency on the part of immigration officials to treat these people as so many numbers, just numbers of people. They are checked, weighed and examined and if they measure up to certain standards they get the blue ribbon stamp of government approval, are put aboard boats and permitted to land in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Everything but rail grading.


Joseph William Noseworthy: There is a tendency to treat them as so many pieces of imported machinery rather than as human beings with human needs and human feelings. A third complaint is that the manner in which assistance is given to immigrants is such that only the head of the family may receive assistance. If there has been a change in that policy recently, I think it is in the interests of the government that the information should be made available. However, my information is that only heads of families may receive assisted passages to Canada. It is then necessary for them to leave their families in their homeland. Consequently they have to maintain two homes while they are trying to establish themselves in a new country. That becomes a hardship especially in view of the fact that once the immigrant has landed in Canada the federal government just about washes its hands of him completely. The only concern the federal government has with them after they land is if they should run foul of the law and become cases for deportation. I suppose that the minister and the government are not entirely to blame. We make no provision for taking care of these people if they meet with misfortune, sickness or death in the early stages of their life in Canada. Family allowances become payable after they have been here one year but there is nothing for the first year. Old age security and old age assistance payments become available after 20 years' residence. The sum total of the results which flow from this policy is that over the years we have been receiving hundreds of thousands of immigrants, keeping them here for a few years, teaching them new skills and giving them an opportunity to become accustomed to the new world way of life, and then we find them going to the United States. For many years emigration from Canada has pretty well equalled immigration into Canada. Over the years there have been hundreds of thousands of immigrants who

have come to this country, received assistance for a few years until they could qualify to enter the United States, and all of this takes place at great cost to Canada and a certain loss of much needed population.
Another criticism, of course, on the part of Canadians just as soon as we begin to step up immigration, is that these immigrants take the jobs of Canadian citizens and crowd Canadian citizens out of their housing accommodation. There are those who maintain that every new immigrant who comes into this country creates a demand for consumer goods, and some of them bring capital which they invest in Canada, thus helping to increase our national production. We must keep in mind that more than human need is necessary to build a strong Canadian society. It is not enough to bring in a million people, all of whom must eat, all of whom must secure clothes to wear, all of whom will need some kind of shelter, unless at the same time we provide jobs whereby these immigrants can earn the money with which to buy those necessities. There is not much gained by having hungry people in this country. Provision must be made for these hungry people to secure the means with which to buy food, clothing and housing accommodation.
I suggest to the minister and to the government that, first of all, there is needed in the department of immigration some over-all plan. Apparently the department plans from year to year. They try to estimate this year how many immigrants Canada can absorb next year. I suppose that under this government's policy that is about all any minister can do so far as planning is concerned. Surely, if Canada needs, as we all agree she does, a large number of immigrants, then it should be possible to plan our economy so that there will be employment for those immigrants without replacing some of our own employed who would become unemployed when the immigrant gets the job. It is that problem to which we must face up, and one for which some over-all planning is required.
There should be some over-all planning to provide housing accommodation. There is still a shortage of homes in Canada, particularly for those in the lower income groups. I have been in houses in my riding in which as many as 30 immigrants were housed, with whole families of immigrants living in one room. The government accepts no responsibility for those conditions, so far as they relate to immigrants the government has brought to this country. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is the government's responsibility to make low cost housing available to these immigrants as well as other Canadians, so that they can find shelter that is not a slum.
Immigration
What we are doing today under our present housing legislation is bringing immigrants into the industrial centres of this country to create slum conditions. I suggest to the government that steps be taken to ensure that our standards of wages, our standards of living, are not undermined by an influx of immigrants into this country. It should be possible to bring to this country the immigrants we need to build our economy, without at the same time lowering the standards which we have reached after years of struggle.
My third suggestion is that our selection of immigrants be on a non-discriminatory basis in so far as race, class, colour and creed are concerned. I have had occasion to raise in this house before, as the minister well knows, the case of immigrants from the British West Indies. I cite that as only one example of the discrimination that is practised by the department today. If we are to build a democratic society in Canada, then we can ill afford to shut out from our country immigrants purely on the basis of their colour, creed or race.
The fourth suggestion I make is one that has been made by trades and labour congresses, and one in which trade unions particularly and other organizations are interested. It concerns the setting up of a permanent advisory council for the assistance of the minister and his officials, a council that will be made up not only of government officials representing federal and provincial governments but of representatives of labour, management, farmers and social service organizations who are interested in immigrants.
This permanent council will give labour an opportunity to learn what the farmers' views are on immigration and vice versa. It will give the government an opportunity of learning what ideas the various groups, which constitute a cross-section of our population, have on the subject of immigration. I should like to see included on that advisory council some representative of the departments of education across this country, because I think much more should be done for the education of the immigrants whom we bring to this country than is being done at the present time.
Right here I want to pay tribute to the department on this point. I have followed with a great deal of interest the booklets they have prepared for the education of immigrants, and the assistance which the federal government renders to boards of education in centres such as Toronto and I presume other metropolitan areas for the education of immigrants, particularly in night

Immigration
schools. That is good work. I want to see it extended, and more education provided for our immigrants.
The advisory council of which I spoke should also form the nucleus of a body that could direct some social research in the field of immigration. Of necessity the government's policy is a hit and miss one. Very little social research has been done in the matter of immigration. The government more or less guesses each year at the number of immigrants we can absorb. There has been no scientific investigation or research into the matter that I am aware of. It is certain that research of that kind could be of assistance to the government so the lives of the immigrants who come to Canada could become happy and the immigrants themselves could become happy and useful citizens of this country and be welcomed instead or criticized by many Canadians, as is done at the present time.
There is room in Canada for a great many more immigrants. I have no idea how many could be absorbed, and I doubt whether the government or anyone else can have any idea in that regard until more research work is done on this subject. Of course, the number we can absorb is by no means static. It will change from year to year as our economy develops and as we begin to use more of our natural resources. Canada needs these immigrants. There are many millions of people in European countries, particularly, that need Canada. All I am asking is that the government give more attention to over-all planning in the fields of employment, housing and education as they affect immigrants who come to this country.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, there are many good reasons why Canadian immigration is a subject deserving of most serious consideration by parliament at this time. The mover of the amendment indicated that we have been offered few opportunities to engage in a co-ordinated, organized debate. It is true that when the estimates of the department come before the house each year we are provided with an opportunity, sometimes a very abbreviated one. It is possible that we can be blamed for that. Then from time to time, as amendments to the act are brought in, further opportunities are provided.
It is particularly appropriate that we should discuss this matter at this time, because all one has to do is read the press of Canada, read the newspaper editorials, read magazines, read magazine editorials, talk to people, meditate upon individual cases that one has come in contact with, to come to the conclusion that Canadians are

particularly disturbed about the situation which they feel must prevail at this time.
The hon. member for Kamloops should be commended for moving his amendment at this time. I am also grateful to the minister for resisting what must have been a very strong temptation to plunge into the debate after the first speaker had concluded his remarks. Probably it is the better part of wisdom for a minister to hold back a bit and hear the whole story from every quarter of the house before answering. Then, of course, there is another advantage in that some of those who speak before he does will not have the opportunity of talking about what he may say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought of that.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am sure the minister did. If there are grounds for criticism at all with respect to our method of dealing with this subject at that time, it is in connection with the suddenness and unexpectedness with which the amendment confronts hon. members when it is moved to the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair. However, as the debate progresses it will be demonstrated that hon. members do not require much time to prepare their remarks and deal with this particular subject.
I indicated a moment ago that all one has to do is to read newspapers, newspaper editorials and so forth to realize that Canadians are greatly disturbed at the present time. Take, for example, the matter of refusing entry to immigrants on what the department says are civil grounds. I realize that some are barred on medical grounds and others for other reasons. I have been told, to use a broad general expression, that some are barred on civil grounds. There may be a good reason for this, but it is rather surprising to me. If a person is barred from admission to Canada on medical grounds the department does not hesitate a moment to say so, to indicate, "it has been found that you have tuberculosis and you are not admissible at this time." But in many instances the reason is not given as medical grounds or any other grounds. I think particularly of a case I had before the department last year of a citizen who had emigrated to Canada and been here for a number of years. He has proven himself to be a good citizen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind my making this correction. It is not the custom of the department to state the refusal is on medical grounds unless the disease is curable or remediable.

In that case it is given for the obvious purpose of enabling the person to try to make himself eligible.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Of course in any specific case the department would not know whether or not it was curable, though a disease taken as such may generally be regarded as curable.
I was referring to a case that came to my attention. This chap emigrated to Canada a number of years ago. He has proved to be an excellent citizen in every respect. He has a brother back home, and as far as he has been able to determine there is no reason whatsoever for barring that brother. However, the department have a reason which of course they refuse to make known. This chap has no right of appeal, apparently, because he does not know on what ground he is barred.
His brother said to me that he feels like leaving Canada because apparently there is something wrong with his family. He told me that he simply cannot find any reason whatsoever for the rejection. Documents have been sent from highly responsible governmental and international agencies in the country, which is not an iron curtain country, supporting his application. This man tells me that the way he feels he might just pick up and go back, or go somewhere else.
I do not know how widespread that situation may be or to what extent it can be cured, but it does put a person in a very unfortunate position if he is not told the reason. If a person is a communist, tell him so; that is my view. Tell him we do not want him. If it is something else, tell him in straightforward language. This may have legal implications, but on the other hand it would be the decent way of dealing with him.
I would like the minister to make a note of what I am going to say now. Frequently immigrants arrive in Canada and make the charge that the situation here has been misrepresented to them, that there were supposed to be jobs available in the line of work in which they are qualified, etc. Some rather severe things have been said. I would ask the minister how far the representatives of the Canadian department of immigration go in informing prospective immigrants as to the true picture which prevails in Canada with respect to employment, etc. I think they should be given a clear-cut and definite picture. If after getting these facts they come here and say some of the things they do, we would at least have the defence that they were fully conscious of the situation before they came. I wonder also to what extent 50433-75
Immigration
certain other organizations might be taking advantage of these people by giving them information that might not be correct.
The charge has been made across this country, and it has been blazoned in rather large type of late, that we have no immigration policy as such in Canada. Some have qualified that statement by saying that if we do have a policy it certainly falls far short of meeting Canada's requirements. I noticed a recent editorial which I shall refer to later. I hope the minister will not ask me to identify it right now, as I promise to come back to it. One very prominent Canadian daily newspaper has gone so far as to say editorially that the government are profoundly suspicious of any immigration policy, that they feel politically happier to have a situation of calculated confusion based on general or vague generalities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They have said it three times in three editorials.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They were right each time.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The minister does not have to ask me whether it was the Winnipeg Free Press. This is the newspaper to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) referred the other day as being liberal with a small "1", but to which I can refer as being Liberal with a large "L".


John Whitney Pickersgill: An excellent newspaper, too.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am not denying that. On the other hand, if the Winnipeg Free Press is actually a Liberal paper I should think an editorial such as that would rock the minister and the whole government right back on their heels. Either that or they should grasp the first opportunity to indicate to the country what their policy is, if they have one, indicating clearly to the country that it is not one of calculated confusion or vague generalities.
When this motion was moved today by the hon. member for Kamloops my mind went back to 1947 when legislation was brought into this house to amend the Immigration Act, designed to do two things; to repeal the Chinese immigration act and to make special provision for the admission to Canada of dependents of members of the armed forces.
I remember on that occasion the then prime minister, the late Mr. Mackenzie King, outlining what he called Canada's immigration policy. I recall speaking in that debate the next day and suggesting that as a broad general statement of policy, a long-range type of policy, we could not find too much fault with it. In looking back over it again just

Immigration
a few moments ago I find that I still cannot find too much fault with that statement of policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Neither can we.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I do not suppose there will be too much criticism advanced today of that broad general statement of policy. It is when you get inside it that you start finding differences of opinion or criticisms. The prime minister of that day said the policy of the government was to foster the growth of population in Canada by the encouragement of immigration. He said the government would seek by legislation and regulation and vigorous administration to ensure a careful selection of permanent settlers of such numbers as could advantageously be absorbed into our national economy. That was on May 1, 1947.
Then he went on to deal with what he called the long-range program for immigration, and he emphasized again the first purpose, namely that of enlarging the population of the country. He pointed out in connection therewith that there was always danger in having a wealthy country like this so sparsely populated, especially when that picture was placed alongside the situation which prevailed in so many countries of the world where you have large populations jammed into small areas with a low level of existence among the people, with at times actual starvation. I stated at that time that that was a statement with which we could agree.
The prime minister then went on to point out that a larger population would help to develop our resources, that there would be more consumers for our domestic products and less necessity for exporting our primary products. That holds as true today.
He next referred to the fact that in his opinion immigration must relate to the country's absorptive capacity. That is an intriguing term. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) registered some criticism. I am wondering in my own mind if any effort has actually ever been made to determine the absorptive capacity of Canada at any specific time. As the prime minister of that day indicated, it will change from time to time and that is understandable. I wonder if in the past eight years the government has advanced at all in the determination of a formula which might guide us in this particular field.
The prime minister did say-I could quote his exact words-that a figure representing

the absorptive capacity would vary from year to year in response to economic conditions. We agree with that, but at the same time we wonder what has been done. We are going to look to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to elucidate when it comes to that particular field. I just wonder what the department has done.
Then of course he referred to this question of selection of immigrants. I am one who has always felt and who still feels-if this is government policy, I agree-that Canada has a perfect right to select those persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. I have always opposed the open door policy, and I still oppose it. While we do not differentiate between Canadians who are born here and those who have been admitted as immigrants and have become citizens, we have the right to choose those who will be permitted to enter the country. We do not discriminate between those two groups, for they are all Canadians interested in the development of this great Canada of ours. But after all this is our Canada, and we have some right to adopt certain policies in this regard. I am not personally familiar with any country that has not some policy restricting certain -"types" is not the right word-persons from entering their country, and I cannot agree for one second with any person who implies we should throw our doors open and allow all and sundry into Canada.
It is true that there are vast open spaces here. This is a big country, and there is room for many people. But in my opinion we must be selective in our policy. I agree with what the late prime minister said-and I think these are his words-that it is not a fundamental human right of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. Certainly we wholeheartedly agree with that. As far as I am aware, though I may be wrong, we have not been committed to any other policy by virtue of our membership in the United Nations or by anything else. I would be one of the severest critics of the government if they were to enter into any kind of agreement which would have the effect of taking from us the right to determine who shall enter this country as a future Canadian citizen.
I would hasten to add that we must prevent any objectionable type of discrimination. If someone were to ask me to define that I might have some trouble, but I can easily think of a situation where hundreds, or hundreds of thousands if you like, of communists were desirous of coming in here, or whose government was desirous of sending them here from Russia, to become citizens

of this country. If we barred them I would not call that objectionable discrimination. But if the discrimination were based only on a man's religion or even on his colour, then that would certainly be objectionable, and it would also be objectionable if it covered only racial origin.
I shall put it very bluntly as far as I am concerned by stating that an objectionable person would be one who would be desirous of coming to Canada not to become a Canadian citizen and work for a greater Canada but for the purpose of acting detrimentally to the welfare of our nation. I also agree that any mass immigration of persons which would change the fundamental complexion of Canada and its people should not be allowed. If that in a broad sense still represents government policy I cannot find too much fault with it. I do feel, however, there is room for criticism, though I believe this is more in connection with the method of handling human beings.
I do not want it to be said that I am singling out any individual as an object of criticism. I do not like that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, when the present minister and his predecessor were being criticized a short time ago I felt in my own mind that they were desirous of doing a good job, and I felt they would welcome and probably needed help in their difficult task. I believe that would be a fairer approach to the whole question. In connection with the question of handling human beings I am sometimes afraid, on the basis of my own experience and for reasons I will mention, that we are a bit too inclined in this department to deal with human beings in terms of charts, graphs, figures, statistics and logistics. I am inclined to believe that our approach is altogether too cold and impersonal.
It is a mighty serious thing to break up a family, yet under this administration that is exactly what happens. I have had a number of cases in which the child of an immigrant, living at home for very good reasons, reaches a certain age beyond which the department say he may come here on his own. He is simply cut off from his family and that puts the family in the position that they either do not come to Canada or if they do come they have to leave the child there alone. The minister might say that if I have cases like that I should bring them to his attention at once, and I would have to confess that I have not brought them with me. But I certainly would not need to go up more than four floors to find plenty of examples in my files.
50433-75i
Industrial Status of Women
As regards those individual cases, though, I must say that when I have brought them to the attention of the department and the difficulties are based on nothing more than a confusion of regulations, they have been dealt with very rapidly. I have no desire to criticize any individual in the department, though in a moment it might appear that is what I am doing, but I would again emphasize the cold and impersonal manner in which many of these cases are dealt with.
I mentioned earlier that we repealed the Chinese immigration act in 1947. I remember the occasion very well. Members of the house praised the government for their action. I supported the idea myself because I was all too familiar with the situation existing in this country under which we allowed male Chinese entry and prohibited the entry of the wife and family. However, a recent action on the part of the government, taken during the recess, was the bringing down of a regulation stating that a child would be recognized as a lawful child only under existing Canadian law. What the government has done is in effect to reimpose a set of conditions almost as severe as those which were removed in 1947.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: I
am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock and the house must now proceed to a consideration of private and public bills.



INDUSTRIAL STATUS OF WOMEN


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Fair-clough for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to provide equal pay for equal work for women.
Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my remarks in French I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) for introducing this bill which involves a principle in more than one respect. This bill indicates that all good proposals are not the monopoly of this side of the house, and that good ideas can originate with the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a red letter day.


Hector Dupuis: I shall vote in support of this bill unless the hon. member decides to withdraw it, realizing, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has said, that after discussion of this matter she may feel that she has accomplished her purpose.

Industrial Status of Women (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, as I have just said in English, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West for having moved this motion which embodies a principle I have always upheld during my 30 years in public life.
In my opinion there should be no difference between the salary paid to women and that paid to men. We have already discussed human rights in the house. The matter will be studied again and I believe we should grant the women of our country the right to receive equal pay for equal work.
Why should different salaries be paid? I have always wondered. If I take part in this debate, it is not so much to say that I support the principles of the motion but rather to voice my apprehension, because if we should follow the practice of paying lower wages to women who do the same kind of work, it might be prejudicial to male workers since it could lead certain employers to hire women whom they would pay less; this would be detrimental to heads of families who have the responsibility of providing for the needs of their dependents.
I have much respect and sympathy for the young woman who must help her family financially. I also have sympathy for widows who have to work. On the other hand, I have much less sympathy for those women who could refrain from working but who hold positions that could be filled by heads of families. I believe that the employment of women who do not have to work outside their home has some effect on the unemployment situation in general. Those women contribute to unemployment which has been increasing, and more particularly so during the past 15 or 20 years.
I am not challenging the right of anyone to work. I am not questioning the right of the woman to work in order to increase her husband's income or provide for certain personal needs. However, I must say that such a situation makes it more difficult to deal with the unemployment problem, in certain cases.
I know that some employers who are not too scrupulous hire women precisely because they pay them less than male workers for equal work. I have no lesson to give to anyone, but I believe that employers themselves should give special attention to this matter and be a little more conscientious when they have to hire workers.
Even if we agreed to the bill as introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton West, such legislation could only be applied in the field coming under federal jurisdiction. It would be a good step forward. We surely cannot deprive the provinces of their right to legislate in labour matters, except, it goes without saying, in those fields specifically mentioned in the Canadian constitution, where the federal government has priority.
However, I take part in this debate once again to call the attention not only of the federal government but also of the governments of the other provinces and of employers, to the advisability of granting women the same rights as men, but above all of helping to solve the unemployment problem. They should understand that in certain cases it would be better to pay a man the salary attaching to a certain type of work rather than give employment to a woman and pay her less.
I would now like to quote the very comforting words of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). I note that the federal government applies the principle of equal pay for equal work, which is all to its credit. I now quote what the Minister of Labour said at page 1088 of Hansard:
Since that time the Department ol Labour has made a study of the comparative wages of men and women in the same or similar job classifications in enterprises which come under federal jurisdiction. As members of the house are aware, in our civil service the salaries within any particular classification are exactly the same, whether for men or women. With respect to those working for the federal government at prevailing rates, it is the practice of my department to recommend that the rate for a classification be the same regardless of whether the work is performed by a man or a woman under the same job title. Taking these things together, I think I can say that this government and my department certainly do stand for the principle here enunciated.
I shall not say any more on the subject because I do not believe we will be able to solve this problem during this session or even during many other sessions. However, I once again draw the attention of the government to the matter of equal pay for equal work and I take this opportunity to assert that this principle cannot be debated too often if we want to do away with the discrimination affecting employees in certain fields of employment.
Again I congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West and I wish to tell her that I do so without reservation because I have upheld this principle during the 30
[Mr. Dupuis.l

years of my public life. I shall support her bill. However, I think it will be a long time before it is implemented in the provincial field as well as in private enterprises.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to be very clear about this so that my remarks will not be misunderstood. I have said and I repeat that I have much respect and sympathy for women who have to work, whether they are single, widows, or married women, the latter helping in some way their husbands whose income is inadequate to provide for the family.
Once again, I hope employers will make it a point to be fair, that they will strive to employ a man rather than a woman and that they will not act niggardly to save a few cents on the salary paid a woman or a man. Everyone agrees that we should do everything possible to remedy unemployment which, in certain circumstances, has actually increased through the employment of women who could do without work.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for only a few minutes, but I rise to support the bill now before the house. In doing so I am happy to indicate that that is and has long been the position of the party to which I belong. Indeed, as I pointed out to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) when this measure was under debate last year, we are pleased to note the similarity between the text of this legislation and legislation in this field which is on the statute books of the province of Saskatchewan.
If I have any quarrel at all with this kind of legislation, either in the form of the bill now before us or with respect to legislation of this kind as it appears on provincial statute books, it is a quarrel with the title. The bill is referred to as "an act to provide equal pay for equal work for women". Speaking as a mere man and looking to the future, I think it might be better if the last two words were omitted. It would then read "an act to provide equal pay for equal work". Looking to the future I can see the day coming when, with this legislation on the statute books, some of us may have to bring in another bill which would be entitled "An act to provide equal pay for equal work for men".


Mrs. Fairclough:: That one would provide equal work for equal pay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At any rate, perhaps the future can be left to take care of itself, but so far as the present is concerned we think this bill should be supported. As hon. mem-
Industrial Status of Women bers are aware, the establishment of equality between men and women in various spheres has been a long and slow process. In the lifetime of many of us here steps have been taken which have marked progress in this connection which we now accept without question. It is hard for us to realize that in the earlier years of this century women in many parts of Canada were still denied the right to vote. We can also recall that it is only a little over 30 years ago that a judicial decision was rendered declaring that women are persons. As hon. members will recall, this point had to be decided before women could be appointed as members of the other place.
These are just a few things that have happened in the twentieth century which indicate that we are still in the process of winning for women equal status with men. In my opinion the next logical step that should be taken is to place on our statute books an act providing equal pay for equal work for women.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Labour the other day, as I always do. It seemed to me that his speech was typical of the kind of speeches we get from the government benches in response to suggestions made from this side of the house, from whichever party they come. If the suggestions are good the best the government can say is, well, not yet; let us wait a while; let us do a little more studying of the matter; it is a good idea and we approve in principle, but let us wait a while.
Hon. members know the long wait we have had to undergo in the case of certain other measures. I hope it is not going to take a long time to get legislation of this kind on the statute books. It seems to me it would not be inconsistent at all with the things the Minister of Labour said the other day, not inconsistent with the fact that there is now under his supervision a women's bureau in the Department of Labour, for the principle of the bill to be approved and the bill to be sent to the committee on industrial relations. If there are changes the minister or the officials of his department feel should be made, or that some of us feel should be made, those changes could easily be made in that committee.
Therefore I hope there will not be a long delay or a long debate in connection with the bill, but that we can come to a vote on it and that the principle of equal pay for equal work for women can be approved by this house which, after all, does consist of men

Industrial Status of Women and women who are all paid alike. I have much pleasure in supporting second reading of the bill.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, neither do I desire to delay unduly a vote on the bill, if we can have one, but before we get that far I want to make a few remarks to explain my own position.
I am sure everyone here is more or less in full agreement with the principle of the bill, a principle that is apparent in its title. However, before the issue comes to a vote I think it might be worth while to examine the proposed legislation under two headings. First, I think it is reasonable to try to assess the actual need for a statute of this kind at this time. Second, I think we should look at the jurisdictional scope that such a bill would have.
With respect to the need, in my own personal experience I have not heard of any cases where women have been discriminated against in the matter of equal pay for equal work. In the province of Ontario we do have a statute embodying this principle and as far as I know there have been very few, if any, charges laid thereunder since its inception. I think it would be most important for our purposes to discover what cases of discrimination there actually are or have been, in what fields they have occurred, and how numerous they are in the particular fields concerned. If we are to aim at nullifying such problems, then we must have a thorough knowledge where and under what circumstances they exist.
If the hon. member who introduced the bill has any specific information in this regard I should be most happy to have it. When the bill was introduced last year and I voted against it I experienced a strong reaction from a portion of my riding where my vote was given some publicity. This was in a weekly newspaper called the Wexford News, and although many of the ladies of the area registered protest against my vote I did not receive from them any specific information as to actual situations that they would like to have remedied.
I am particularly impressed also by the fact that one receives no representations from trade unions, labour organizations or employees' organizations in regard to the bill. No doubt all female members of such organizations are covered by the bargaining units Of the organizations, and I arn led to believe from my experience that at the present time at least the bill is more important for the principle it involves than for the practical effect it may have. For this reason I feel that there is no desperate urgency for the measure, and certainly we have time to carry
I Mr. Knowles.]

out the research by the women's bureau of the labour department that is now under way.
In any event, what is the scope of the bill now before the house? I think the public generally feel-and this has been my experience-that the bill represents a clarion call for all women to rouse themselves and fight for equality in the field of labour. The impression has been created, whether inadvertently or not, that the bill affects every woman who holds a job in any line of work anywhere in Canada. This is very wrong, and very bad. I should like to take pains to point out that the scope of the measure would be very limited indeed. Section 2 of the bill endeavours to set out the narrow confines within which the bill would operate. Everyone should be aware that under property and civil rights the provinces have the responsibility for labour legislation of all kinds. This measure can only affect those fields in which the federal government has specific jurisdiction, the largest of which would be the civil service.
In my opinion a constitutional difficulty might arise if we endeavoured to apply the provisions of the bill to all the industries listed in section 2 of the bill. Many companies, especially navigation and railway companies, are affected by provincial legislation. In this regard, we run headlong into the so-called double aspect doctrine of constitutional law. An old case, Russell v. the Queen, held that for one aspect and for one purpose the substantive law in a bill may fall within the rights of provincial governments and for another aspect and another purpose may fall within the federal jurisdiction. We could very well find that, in the matter of navigation and railways, jurisdiction falls for one purpose in the federal field, but when it comes to matters of labour, wages and rights of workers in those industries, that aspect would fall within the provincial field. You cannot, therefore, merely set up this list of industries in section 2 without involving this constitutional difficulty.
I am sure that the consistent efforts of the hon. member for Hamilton West to promote this bill are vindicated by the formation of the women's bureau in the Department of Labour, the chief purpose of which is to study the very principle embodied in the bill. In fact I would not have been surprised had the hon. member decided to allow her proposed act to stand or even withdraw it, in the light of the statement made by the Minister of Labour on February 11 last. I am sure that if she were in the position of a government member, responsible for the introduction of such a bill, she would adopt a procedure which, first of all, called for a thorough look



IS, 1955

[Stage Direction]
at the facts. I credit her with a great deal of good sense, and she cannot deny that a report from a body set up to study the very situation she wants to regulate would add to her own knowledge, and allow her own good judgment to function more effectively.
Under the circumstances, therefore, I do not believe the time is propitious for the passage of this bill. For the reasons I have stated, I feel that at this time I must vote against it.
Miss Sybil Bennell (Halton):: In rising to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel there is a great deal that can be added to the debate. A great deal has been said, and some very plausible arguments have been advanced. I do want to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West upon the introduction of this measure and the logical way in which she sponsored it. I want to make it clear, too, that I am not speaking on this bill because I think it affects women only. I feel this bill goes very much further and affects both men and women, in fact the whole industrial life of this nation.
We must accept the fact that the women all across this country have now become a consolidated, integral part of our labour force. In fact the whole modern trend, the whole build-up in the last quarter century has been toward the idea that women have become an inseparable and integral part of industry. As I go around my county and see modern industry operating, I find it is built around the idea of the employment of women. For that reason it should hardly be necessary to make speeches about this measure. It should not be just taken under consideration. The time has come when we should have equality as between men and women all the way through our industrial life. In the last quarter century we have been spendiqg our time talking about equality of rights, equality of opportunities, and we have set ourselves up as a country that proposes and backs that type of thing. Such a measure as this, then, is long overdue.
One set of figures has been brought out which I think is very significant. It was stated in this house that approximately within the last year our total labour force has been increased by some 13,000 men and some 50,000 women. Now, Mr. Speaker, that could bring about a very serious situation in our industrial life. With the unemployment we have in this country today, if we do not have equality of pay we might very soon find employers throughout this country taking oh cheaper labour by employing women who would take less pay because this bill had not been passed. Men who had families, and who needed the work, would be discriminated
Industrial Status of Women against. They would not have the same opportunity to work. From a negative standpoint alone, and I do not like to put it on that basis, we should have equality of pay for equality of work.
I should like to make a short reference to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield). I feel it can be said quite certainly that representations have been made by the unions on this very point.
On the basis of the points I have just made, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel it is necessary to postpone consideration of this measure, particularly when we have something of a crisis in this country. I feel the Minister of Labour would be well advised to ensure the passage of this bill. Then as certain points come up and have to be reconsidered or changed, we can deal with them. At the moment I feel that the time is long past due for the enactment of such a measure, and I intend to support this bill.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the hon. member for Hamilton West speaks now she will close the debate.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Before dealing with some of the matters which were raised the other day by the Minister of Labour, I should like to say a word with respect to the remarks made today by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I should like to inform him that I have conducted some research on this problem, and even if I had not I have been working for a great many more years than the hon. member has, I am sorry to say, and I can assure him I have some knowledge of working conditions not only amongst women but amongst men. I probably could not convey this knowledge to him in the short hour that is given over to the discussion of private and public bills.
I should like to deal with some of the points which were brought out in the minister's remarks the other day. I believe he said that, in principle, he is in agreement with this bill. However, I believe he made some remarks which deserve an answer. In the first place, he spoke about the establishment of the women's bureau and the fact that it had set itself up to study this as one of the problems that was presented to it.
In making that remark he accused me of looking at him with a sceptical eye. If I did so, Mr. Speaker, it was because I had first of all looked at the estimates and found at page 32 of the estimates book, dealing with his department this year, that some $24,600 had been allocated to the women's bureau.

Industrial Status of Women Last year $24,090 was allocated to the women's bureau. I do not know how much additional study or research the minister thinks the women's bureau, with all their genius, can do for $510. It would be very interesting to know that.
But when I turn over to page 254, where the details of those expenditures are given, I find that although $24,090 was allocated last year, the women's bureau used actually only $9,170. At least that is the estimate of the amount that was used by the end of the fiscal year. It is true that they have been functioning for only a few months. It is not very long since the director was appointed, and most of this $9,000 has gone to pay the salaries of the three people who comprise the women's bureau.
The minister did not hesitate to brag a little about what had been done. He said, as reported at page 1091 of Hansard:
Since the recent establishment and organization of our women's bureau the department has done a good deal in this regard.
Maybe they have, Mr. Speaker, and maybe they are keeping it secret. I have the very highest regard for the people who are trying to run this branch, but I suggest that the director would have to be a genius and have two first assistant geniuses to work with her to achieve the good deal in this regard which the minister claims has already been done. I might say that I have seen no evidence of it, but no doubt some of it will come out shortly in reports.
The minister then went on to say that a year ago when the bill was first discussed he was in agreement with the principle, as he is today, and further that he felt that until the matter had been investigated further he was not prepared to support the legislation. He is in exactly the same position this year that he was in last year. Despite the fact that he has a hard-working department back of him and a great many people who are capable of doing the required research into a problem of this sort, he is not prepared to support the bill; and I daresay if the bill comes up again next year he will still not be prepared to support it, and the year after that, and so on ad infinitum.
I do suggest, when the minister refers to the studies which he says are now going on to secure the necessary information, Mr. Speaker, that surely the department must already have that information. Surely the Department of Labour knows the conditions under which women are working. Surely they have on their files statistics and other information with respect to wages and conditions of work. If they have not, why have they not? This department has been in

operation for many years. Surely in all the years that we have had the Department of Labour they have done research in other than the field of male employment. That to me is a most startling admission. The implication is definitely that no research has been done at all in the field of employment of women.
The minister flattered me a little bit when he said no doubt I had been very busy, inasmuch as he had received representations from women's organizations. I can assure him that on that score I am entirely innocent. I had nothing whatever to do with them. They were purely spontaneous, and if anyone instigated them it was the minister himself by having the temerity to throw down the gauntlet, as it were. I should think that as a married man he would know by now that if he challenges a woman he has really stepped into something.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am learning.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister said a great many things in his remarks the other day that are distinctly provocative to the introducer of this bill. I do not know whether he was following a pattern with the intention of taunting the women's organizations into doing some of his work for him when he said:
Not one of the groups making representations has brought forward relevant information regarding the nature and extent of the problem as they see it, nor has any of them outlined its position with respect to the substance of the legislation sought.
I do not know what that means. Does the minister mean that he is asking these organizations to do the necessary research for his own department? I know they are hard-working people, and they raise quite a little bit of money which they spend wisely and well in various charitable and patriotic activities. But I doubt whether the Minister of labour has any right to ask well-organized women's organizations of this country to do research work in the field in which his department has jurisdiction.
Among other things he mentioned was the fact that in the provincial field only some 32 per cent of the employees are under collective agreements. He went on to say: as reported on page 1089 of Hansard:
Of course the women within those activities would work out to approximately the same percentage.
That is not so, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the reasons legislation of this sort is necessary. There are far more women, proportionately, in employment who are not unionized and who have no chance of collective bargaining, than there are men. I submit

that the principle alone counts in this matter, and that it bears no relationship whatever to the number of persons affected. If it did it would be a strong argument in its favour, because certainly there are far more men employees, proportionately, protected under collective agreements than there are women.
I was slightly amused by the minister's plea that he should not accept the power which would be given to him in this legislation. This is the first time I have ever heard a member of this government express any reluctance to assume power. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour is slightly more timid than his colleagues, but I would think it is a rather far-fetched argument. I submit further that it is quite within the minister's power to bring in the necessary amendments to any legislation which is brought down; and he realizes, probably even more fully than I do, that there are limitations on the wording which can be put into a bill proposed by a private member. Of course such things as the penalties to be imposed, and so on, would have to be proposed by the minister in any event.
He spoke further about the fact that provincial legislation was in effect, but that the provincial governments concerned had had very limited experience. It is true that there have not been many complaints, but it is also true that in general people do not make it a practice to flout the law. The fact that there have been comparatively few complaints would suggest to me not that there are not many complaints to be made, but that the legislation in effect in those provinces has had a salutary effect on employers in general and that the position has considerably improved.
The minister said that in presenting this bill I probably had achieved the result I had in mind. A similar remark was made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I can assure those hon. members that if all I had wanted to do was make a speech I would have made a much longer one when I introduced the bill. As he knows, I spoke very briefly ini the hope that we could have a recorded vote. As I see no concrete evidence that the minister has any intention of bringing in his own legislation, I think I shall have to ask the house to express its opinion. I hone that most hon. members will support this legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
At eight o'clock the house will resume the debate which was interrupted at five o'clock. As it is six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply.

Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was commenting upon the fact that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration had, for some yet unexplained reason, imposed restrictions upon the admission to Canada of certain children of Chinese origin. I think it would not be asking too much if I were to request that the minister give to the house a clear-cut explanation of the reasons for the imposition of these new restrictions. I feel now as I did when I heard the announcement of these regulations, namely that much of the good that had been accomplished by the repeal of the Chinese immigration act in 1947 had now been undone.
I feel strongly about that matter. Many of these Chinese boys and girls are in Hong Kong. They left what is now communist China during or toward the end of hostilities there. Their parents reside here. In some cases the mother resides here as well as the father. I have been told by some of these parents what it is costing them in dollars to maintain those children in Hong Kong and certain other places. Of course we add to that something else the value of which cannot be expressed in terms of

dollars. ' I refer to the heartache these people must experience who are now faced with this new and rather rigid set of circumstances. I am therefore going to ask the minister if, when he speaks, he would go into this matter in some little detail.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I did not catch, if the hon. member gave it, what new regulation he was referring to.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Prior to last fall there were regulations respecting or governing the establishment of proof of parenthood. New regulations were passed last fall, if I am informed correctly, providing that now in determining that parenthood the same laws that apply in Canada will be applied there. From past experience we all know that the situation is not parallel in China.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to clarify that point right now.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is fine.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension about the facts. The facts are that under the regulations until June 30, I think it was-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will correct me if I am wrong-or until this judgment of the supreme court, we had assumed that "child" meant the child of the father and the mother who would be recognized as the wife here under Canadian law. As I apprehend it, the supreme court said that a child was legitimate who was the child of a concubine; and the governor in council, in his wisdom, then said that was not what he had meant by the regulation, and he made a new regulation making it clear beyond any doubt that the children of a concubine were not admissible under the regulations. But in fact they had not been admitted previously; so that, as far as practice is concerned, there is no change whatsoever.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister knows very well that when he uses the word "concubine"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that is not an accurate statement of the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should allow the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) to continue his discussion. If we are to have an intermediate debate interpolated in this debate, it will not make for good order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not the case at all. It is a question of adoption and what is legitimate over there.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I was so anxious to hear what the minister might have to say in that respect that I was only too happy to sit down. I take it, then, that there has been no change. Does the same apply as far as adoption is concerned?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand-and again I ask the Minister of Finance to correct me if I am wrong-that adopted children were never included and are not included now.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Possibly at another time we can pursue that matter. All I would say now, Mr. Speaker, is that if the situation is as it was before, then I am extremely happy. But the impression which was conveyed to us by all the reports we read certainly led me and others to the conclusion that there definitely had been a restriction. But if there is not, then of course I am extremely happy to know it.
Earlier in the day, Mr. Speaker, I stressed the fact that, in our attitude toward prospective immigrants, I believe there should be a different approach from the one we seem to have at the present time. I stressed that I thought we should display a belief-at least if we hold it-that these people are human beings. I have cause to feel that the humanitarian aspect of this whole matter has been submerged. Without having any specific information on the matter, I have sometimes wondered whether or not those persons who have a good deal to do with the direction of policy are not trying to handle this whole question like an army is handled. I do not know how many persons engaged in this particular aspect of our work are military men, but I sometimes think there are some, maybe starting with the minister's deputy; I do not know. There seems to be too much of a military approach to the handling of our prospective immigrants.
There is another matter for which I hope the minister will give some explanation. It is my understanding that today when a person escapes from an iron curtain country or is permitted to leave an iron curtain country, as is sometimes the case with older people, 65 years of age or over, those persons must first find shelter in what is designated as a friendly country, and there they must remain for a period of two years before favourable consideration can be given to the application for admission to Canada; I say "favourable consideration" provided other things are equal. They simply will not permit them to come in until after a period of two years. I think they call it a period 50433-761
Immigration
of quarantine. I do not know whether that is mental quarantine or quarantine because of the possibility of disease.
What makes people wonder is this. If the escape from an iron curtain country is more spectacular and the press give it a good deal of publicity, the person very often lands right here and is permitted to remain. I am not complaining about that fact, but it is certainly an anomaly. We have had that situation develop. I would not have been a bit surprised, prior to this time, if more of them had tried to make their escapes a bit more spectacular and had made sure they did not stop before they reached the shores of Canada because, nine chances out of ten, then they would have been permitted to remain here.
I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that possibly the department of immigration has allowed itself to become too cluttered up with regulations. Usually when a new minister takes over we suddenly hear of something comparable to a housecleaning. I am not using that term possibly in the same sense of the word as some would use it. When you say to a person that you are housecleaning, you almost always think of sweeping out; this new broom sweeps out. But in this department, as far as I am aware anyway, I have not heard about too much of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no need of it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am not speaking of sweeping out and housecleaning in the sense of getting rid of personnel, if that is what the minister had in mind. I am glad he at least thinks that everything is all right on immigration avenue. I for one would like to see all this multitude of regulations which exist in the department of immigration brought together and some impartial body have a look at them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will send the hon. member a copy.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am rather of the opinion that that might be a desirable course of action with respect to not only the regulations but the rulings. Bring them all together and let us have a look at them; or, better still, let somebody who can be properly designated as impartial have a look at them.
In that regard there is one thing the minister must not forget. No matter what he may think about his own department-and I do not blame him for thinking well of it- no matter what his supporters may think about it, the minister cannot close his eyes to the fact that right across the country criticism is appearing in some newspapers which we know are very strong political supporters of the government.

Immigration
I do not think it would do a bit of harm and it might do a lot of good if the minister would lay down again in clear and concrete terms a statement on immigration policy as it is now in effect. If he is able to do so, I think he should show that the government has something more than what one newspaper at least called high-sounding and meaningless platitudes instead of an effective immigration policy. I think he should make some move to prove to the house and the country that the statement in the Winnipeg Free Press to the effect that the government is profoundly suspicious of a policy and finds it politically wise to stay away from anything concrete is not according to the facts. In view of the rather conflicting statements that are made by ministers of the crown I think the minister should serve notice on his colleagues that henceforth he will make all statements, or if they are going to make them he will write them first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the last thing this minister wants to do.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Possibly the minister has some better method of bringing the statements that are made by ministers a little closer together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He had too much of that before he entered the cabinet.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Certainly the two that were mentioned this afternoon were just about as contradictory as any two statements could be, as far as I am concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Parallel.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Since my time is almost up I think I should emphasize one thing. I am not one of those persons who look at the figures and says that certainly we must have more people come to Canada than came last year or the year before. I am not going to do that. In fact when I look at the figures I find that if you go back 40 years you will see that on the basis of numbers at least we had a more vigorous immigration policy then than we have today. But I know there are other factors that enter into the situation. People may not be very desirous of coming to Canada. On the other hand, I certainly would not wish to build up the numbers just for the sake of numbers because, as I said earlier, in my opinion the policy should be a selective one. I think we have a perfect right to choose.
There is one thing I want to say about the report of the department. I stated earlier that I believe the department is in the habit of dealing too much with charts, statistics, etc. I find that in the report on immigration there are 20 pages of statistics, counting each side of each leaf as a page, and there are

only about five pages of text actually dealing with immigration itself from the point of view of policy. I believe the minister could probably escape a certain amount of criticism if in the production of the report of the immigration branch more information were given than is contained in this report for the year ended March 31, 1954. What is now contained in the report is just about the same sort of information that one gets from a newspaper in reading an account of something that has happened.
The house should have a more detailed statement of the operations of the department. I would not suggest dropping the statistics, because they have their place and value. I am not going to delay the house further. I hope the minister will see fit to give consideration to some of the matters I have raised.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may be permitted, I will send over to the hon. member a copy of the Immigration Act and the regulations. I think all the red tape is here within these two covers.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would be very glad to review that in the light of all the various rulings and regulations that have been indicated to me.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to take part in this debate, but when I heard the hon. member for Kamloops paint a black picture of the services of the former minister of citizenship and immigration I thought I would state a few facts just as I know them.
I have had a good deal to do with the minister in charge of immigration and with the departmental officials, and I must say that I have been well treated. I did not get everything I asked for, though everything I asked for was probably right. When I have tried to get an immigrant admitted to Canada I have been able to do so when work could be guaranteed. I must say that I had one case where an immigrant came to this country who was not guaranteed work, and he subsequently took ill. I have the case before the minister now. I do not think the municipality should have to pay the expenses of that individual. I think the government should pay.
There are certain types of work that young Canadians will not do. I have found that they are not very keen to go into the bush. Neither are they very keen to work on the railroads or in the mines. We need men for these types of work, and I think it is the duty of the immigration branch to see that we have workers who will do them. I have also had some difficulty about the admission of

young Chinese to Canada. We were able to bring one young student to Port Arthur. It was proved beyond any doubt that he was the legitimate child of the parents who were seeking his admission. It was proved by X-ray that he was under age, and he came to Port Arthur and made good.
A local doctor of prominence wanted to secure the admission to Canada of two boys belonging to a Chinese doctor known to the local doctor, so the boys could go to university at Winnipeg. I had no trouble securing the admission of these two boys because they were under age and everything was proved up to the hilt. I hear from them every Christmas. They are bright students and are making good. At the present time I am trying to secure the admission of two other Chinese boys, but so far I have utterly failed. However, I am going to keep at it until I find out the reason.
When parents live in Canada and their children are in China and they want to bring them here, I think they should be allowed to enter the country, provided the children can be proved to be legitimate, because their fathers are citizens of Canada. I want to pay my tribute to the minister and the director of immigration for the patience they have shown me. There are two groups of people in Canada, one which agrees with the department and one which does not. There are those who think that immigrants coming here create unemployment. There are others who say that immigrants coming here make employment. These two views are just the opposite, and they are held by members on both sides of the house.
I simply rose to pay my tribute to the former minister of immigration.


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: I am
very glad to take part in this debate, because the last time I took part in a debate on this subject was in 1952. The views which I expressed at that time were the same as the views I hold today.
This afternoon I was rather surprised at some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I believe the three main points in his speech were to the effect that this government had not spoken with a consistent voice; that our immigration policy was not in accordance with the needs of Canada; and that injustice and hardship had been worked on Canadians and non-Canadians alike as a result of our immigration policy.
I said that I hold the same views on this subject as I expressed in this house in 1952. I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, that those were the views of the late Mr. King and of
Immigration
the Liberal party, and are consistent with the policy of this government. I believe it was in 1947 that the late Mr. King expressed the policy of his government on immigration along these lines:	first, our immigration
should be made up of permanent immigrants on a selective basis; second, our national economy should be ready and able to absorb this influx of immigrants; third, immigration should not be the cause of an undue change in the ethnical balance of the two main groups in this country; fourth, immigration is not a right but a privilege to be extended.
I should say, Mr. Speaker, that as a supporter of this government I certainly share those views on immigration policy, and I shall certainly vote against the amendment that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Kamloops.
Coming to the first point in this government's policy, that our immigration should be made up of permanent residents, one has only to recall what happened between 1901 and 1931 to realize the importance of this statement. In that time about 5 million immigrants were brought into this country, and during the same period about 3-5 million left the country. I would dare anyone to say that our policy should not take care of this factor, and that our policy should be based on non-permanent immigrants being brought to this country. It is a very expensive way of getting immigrants into this country, when you bring in 5 million and during the same period 3-5 million leave.
I do not believe I need develop the point that our immigration should be on a selective basis. As a matter of fact I believe the hon. member for Kamloops expressed this view, and I believe all hon. members are in agreement with it.
I do not recall hearing the hon. member for Kamloops say that the policies announced by the late Mr. King, and pursued by this government, were not announced in a very clear voice. Of course it may be that, being broadminded, I do not pay too much attention if a minister of the crown says in one part of the country the optimum population should be 35 million, and if in the province of Quebec he says it should be 40 million. I do share this view that the optimum population of Canada within the next 25 years, that is around the turn of the century, should be about 40 million people. This is a very strange argument for a member of the Conservative party to bring forward because at one time-I think I referred to it in this house in 1952-the leader of the Conservative party stated in British Columbia that the population of Canada should be 125 million people.

Immigration
This unclear and inconsistent voice of the Conservative party could be attacked in some other respects. It is only about two or three days ago that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) gave a statement to the press in Quebec. He said that Canadians speaking French should do their best to learn the English language and that Canadians speaking . English should also try to learn the French language, so there would be greater national unity. This was a member of the Conservative party speaking.
I recall that in 1950 the same member of the Conservative party came to my riding and, under the sponsorship of the Conservative candidate at that time, made a speech. This speech was written in French, and during the course of it the hon. member for Broadview left the implication that the Conservative party, if elected, would nominate an ambassador or representative of the Canadian government to the Vatican. When we came back to this house for the first session I told the hon. member what he had said, and he replied that he had never said that. When he returned to Toronto he stated that his words never carried any such implication. I feel that the argument put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops to the effect that this government does not speak with a clear and consistent voice on immigration policy does not hold much water.
The second point, as I understand it, is that our immigration policy should be based on the fact that our national economy is capable of absorbing this influx of immigrants. Merely because this country extends from one ocean to the other, merely because there are only 15 million people in this land, does not mean that one should support a policy of wide open immigration into this country. Despite the very optimistic declarations of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage), I do not think any member in this house would take his family up to the Arctic circle or into the Northwest Territories. No one would expect these people who come here as immigrants to go to the northwest and freeze in the cold.
It is true that this land does extend from one ocean to the other. It is true that according to statistics there are only 2-5 persons occupying each square mile, but I feel there are limits to the population Canada can support. There are limits to the number of people we can bring into this country, and those limits are set either by the development of our natural resources or by our capacity to produce. I have heard statements from businessmen during luncheon addresses to the effect that this land is full of opportunity and there is room here for many, many
[Mr. Maltais.l
people. My experience has been that the development of our natural resources is limited, and let me tell you this story to illustrate my point.
The natural resources on the north shore of the St. Lawrence are being developed. We have Seven Islands and the iron ore development. I was up there myself. At the beginning of the development 6,000 people were employed there. That was in the boom years when the development first began. I venture to say that today, since most of the works have been completed, the labour force up there is not more than 3,000 people.
Let me give another illustration. We had a development in the lake St. John district by the Aluminum company. Some dams were built on different rivers. I referred to that four years ago. At that time the labour force was around 6,000 people. I doubt at this moment whether there are a hundred people working on the same project. That means, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to justify immigration by the development of our natural resources.
I should congratulate the government on the fact that its immigration policy is based on experience over a long period of time. A statement was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops and I am wondering whether this statement was based on the same statistics that I am now going to use. In the course of the debate he said that from the years 1950 to 1954, inclusive, the figures establish that British immigration on some occasions has been as low as one-sixth of the total immigration.
I do not think that statement is fair, Mr. Speaker. I hold in my hands a report of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration dated March 31, 1954. I shall quote some statistics that appear on page 23. Over the last ten years the immigrants who came to this country were divided as follows: from the British Isles, 368,127; from Germany, 127,356. During the same period there came 97,122 Dutch; 98,187 Italians and 28,769 French. If you add the number of immigrants coming from countries outside of the British Isles you will find that in the last ten years 351,434 immigrants came from countries other than the British Isles, and 368,127 came from the British Isles.
It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that the statement made by the hon. member for Kamloops was based on a very short period and was made for the purpose of criticizing the policy of the government. He has picked out certain years to suit the purpose he had in mind.
I could criticize the government that I support because its immigration policy has

not tried to keep a balance between the two groups which form the majority in this nation. Of course I am very proud of those immigrants who came to this country from the British Isles and are now Canadians, because as a Canadian of French descent I think we owe very much to the British traditions and we should accept and be proud to share with these new immigrants what Canada has to offer to our people.
On the other hand, I can say I am sorry that our immigration policy does not take more account of immigrants of French descent. Perhaps I should apologize because, on reading this report of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, I find that most of the provinces have come to some arrangement with the federal government to help and to improve the conditions of immigrants coming to this country, but I regret to say that the province in which I live and of which I am very proud has not seen fit to enter into an agreement with the federal government to try to increase the number of immigrants of French descent arriving in Canada.
Another point on which I should like to touch has to do with the immigration policy of the government with respect to the rights of immigrants. The hon. member for Kamloops this afternoon expressed the view that immigrants have a right to come to this country. It might well be that we could discuss this matter for a very long time, whether immigration is a right or whether it is a privilege extended by the country that is receiving immigrants. If a nation has not the right to make regulations and laws regarding the matter of bringing immigrants into this country I am wondering whether the same reasoning would not apply to a family in such a country. I do not think anybody has a right to come into someone else's home and say to the head of the family "I am a neighbour of yours. I want to share in your welfare. I want to sit at the same table and be sheltered in the same house." If we adopt the argument which the hon. member for Kamloops put forward this afternoon it will lead us into a position that will be very hard to maintain.
He said there are at least 5 million people too many in Europe; but I do not think it is the right of those 5 million people to come to Canada at any one time and endanger our economic way of life and the structure of our population. The view that immigration is a right should not be accepted without limitations. It is true, as the hon. member for Kamloops said, that cases have arisen in which the officers of the department do not deserve too much congratulation. But even when you think of these specific cases you
Immigration
must realize that our country has welcomed over a million people since the war.
One should realize that with such a large number of people coming to this country quite a few might suffer hardship because of the regulations or the legislation, but that can be found in any branch of human endeavour. We are always ready to take note of the exceptions and close our eyes to the great majority of the people who came to this country and made a decent living and are now Canadians, sharing in the ideals of democracy and freedom of which we are proud. We do not always agree on the ways and means of obtaining democratic freedom and these other ideals which we all share, and we should not use exceptions like that as a basis for broad statements that the immigration policies are all mixed up with regulations which have accumulated over the years. I do not think that is fair.
As far as I am concerned I shall continue to support this government in its policy of immigration. One can have only praise for the former minister of immigration and for the present minister. I think they have followed the policy which was enunciated in 1947 by Mr. King. I do not see how this policy could be challenged. There are those who believe that immigration should be based only on economic principles, but I think we should keep in mind that humanitarian and Christian principles should apply also. If my memory serves me right, in 1946 we welcomed into this country over 100,000 soldiers from Poland, Czechoslovakia and eastern Europe. That was based on Christian principles. It is not so many years ago that this country opened its doors to a great number of displaced persons from Europe. I would say that the present government has even broadened the principles which were enunciated in 1947 by Mr. King. I do not hesitate to support the Liberal party in this policy which it has expressed in such a clear and consistent way.
I share the view of a majority of good Canadians that this country is certainly in need of immigration to help in the growth of our population. I share the views which have been expressed in the house this afternoon that immigrants do not contribute to a very large extent to the problem of unemployment which occurs every year at this particular time.
I shall not hesitate to support this same government in the years ahead in its immigration policy which I know will be flexible enough to take care of the natural increase of population and which will respect our economic way of life. My suggestion would be that great care should be taken

Immigration
to try to maintain a balance between the ethnic groups which form this country. I share the view that immigration, which might be a natural right, should also be considered in the light of our political and economic situation.
These matters should be taken care of before an assertion is made, like that made by the hon. member for Kamloops, that immigration to this country should be increased and that immigration should be made up of more British stock. It is not that I am against British stock. I welcome them here, but I think we should admit that in order to maintain a balance between the two groups we should have respect for one another's desires and wishes, that this country shall be great and that the two groups in this country shall keep in balance.
In conclusion I would say that the hon. member for Kamloops is not right when he says that only one-sixth of immigration was made up of British stock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I should like to correct a figure I used this afternoon, and to some extent I must thank the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) for directing my attention to it.
I refer to the figure of one-sixth as representing British immigration. I said that British immigration had fallen to as low as one-sixth in one year. I have no correction to make as to that.
However, I think I used an expression to the effect that for the ten-year period it had never averaged more than about 25 per cent. Unfortunately I do not have the Hansard take in front of me, but that is my recollection of the figure I used. I should have said that it has never averaged more than about 30 pier cent. If I have misled the house I ask the house to understand that it was entirely through inadvertence. I like to be accurate in my use of figures, and my figure should have been about a 30 per cent average for the entire period.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal today about people having trouble with young Chinese.
I must say that I have had trouble with one older Chinese who wanted to bring into Canada a woman he contended was his wife.
I shall not trouble the minister with that tonight, as he and I have had correspondence about this in the past.
In the few remarks I intend to make, first I should like to pay a compliment to the former minister, for whom I have great respect. Then I have a question I should like to ask. Next I have a story to relate, which I think will be found to be quite surprising.

First, with respect to the compliment; during the last five years a great many people have come into my constituency from Holland and in this respect I think the department of immigration and the present and immediate past ministers should be highly complimented. These people who came to Canada from Holland have proved to be very good farmers. My constituency is semi-urban and semi-rural. Many of these people who have come from Holland were most anxious to get hold of plots of ground, and they have made excellent farmers. They had very little money, but they borrowed money and they have always paid their debts on time. Many of their mortgages have been paid ahead of time. They are hard-working people who never get involved in any serious crime. I found that to be the case from my previous experience in the legal field.
These people from the Netherlands have a particularly fine sense of social responsibility. Since they come from one of the democratic countries in the western hemisphere I suppose that is only reasonable. Just to illustrate this, when Woodstock was building a new hospital these Dutch people put on a concert and sang their native songs dressed in their native costumes. They raised money for the community fund. When "Hurricane Hazel" devastated parts of western Ontario, as it did the Toronto district, the Dutch people again put on a concert and raised money to help those in need of relief. If the minister of immigration has a policy no doubt we will hear about it before this debate is over; but if under that policy he wishes to bring in more people from the Netherlands I for one will welcome them.
I certainly would like to see him bring in more from the British Isles as well.
The second point I would like to deal with is a question. I should like to ask this of the minister of immigration and also the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who I think is involved in it as well. Quite a number of persons who immigrate to this country become unemployed for various reasons a short time after their arrival. If they have not paid in the 180 contributions toward unemployment insurance within a two-year period they cannot, as we all know, collect any unemployment insurance. In addition, if they have been only a short time in a community they cannot obtain any relief from that community. I understand municipalities vary as to how long they require a person to be resident before they pay relief, but in Ontario, after making inquiries, I find that the rule of thumb method adopted is a period of three months, which seems to be the generally accepted figure.

Quite a number of people who arrive here have been resident in these communities for a matter of only several weeks. They are out of a job; have no money, perhaps because of the fact that they can bring very little with them; they cannot get relief, and when they go to the unemployment office they are refused unemployment insurance. They are then in a fine kettle of fish and many of them are afraid of becoming public charges, because, as I understand it, they have been told they then will be shipped back to their country of origin.
I would ask the minister what is the policy in this regard. If these people become unemployed and have no means of subsistence, if they try to obtain relief will they be sent back to where they came from? If this is the case I do not think it is fair. They should not have been brought here in the first place unless the government could give them some assurance of employment, or alternatively assure them relief.
I am told that in some constituencies the Department of Labour helps these people in some manner or other. In some other places it certainly does not. There seems to be little co-ordination between the department of immigration and the Department of Labour in this respect. I would like to direct this question to the ministers in charge of these departments. Is there any consistent policy with respect to immigrants who come here and become unemployed? Are the Department of Labour going to assist these people, and if so are they going to adopt a consistent policy throughout Canada? I think the policy in this regard should be made quite clear.
It is very embarrassing for municipal officials to have people who are starving come to them for relief. The municipalities do not like to turn them down. On the other hand, the people are not resident in that municipality, and the municipality itself will probably have to suffer in the long run if it gives out limitless relief. I know that some municipalities, when they have people come to them from adjacent municipalities, got in touch with the original municipality and agree to pay the relief if it will foot the bill. But that practice cannot be put into effect with regard to those who come from another country.
The last point I wish to mention is amazing and I believe quite shocking. In fact the story seemed so amazing to me that I made several inquiries before I decided to bring it before the house. I am convinced that my sources of information are reliable, and I hope the minister will have some comment to make when he speaks in this debate.
Immigration
Greek mythology had a story, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that persons who died and departed this world had to be put into a boat and taken across the river Styx to the next world by an old ferryman called Charon. This story bears some relation to the modern world, or at least that period to which my particular story relates, and that period was three years ago.
The metaphor is not exact, because the river Styx would have to represent the Atlantic ocean, and I would not care to compare either the present or the past Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with the old ferryman who carried the bodies across the river into the other world. In addition Canada, instead of being the other world, is a land of promise, free of despair. However, in other respects that Greek story has some application to the story I am about to tell.
I was informed by two persons who came to Canada over three years ago from a camp in Germany that the following incident took place on the S.S. Beaverbrae, which is out of service now but which at that time was used to bring immigrants to Canada. These people were Estonians originally and now live in my constituency. They were displaced persons located in a camp in Germany. They paid, I am told, $190 each for their passage on the Beaverbrae. They had a young baby with them. On the way over the men were made to sleep in bunks in one hold and the women were provided with bunks in another hold. In addition the men were made to scrub the decks and passageways, and the women made to clean up the toilet facilities and prepare vegetables for the meals. The meals, such as they were, apparently were not always edible, and I am told that the eggs were rotten. The passengers-I call them passengers because they paid a fare of $190 although they seem to have been regarded more as part of the crew-were told that if they did not work they would not receive any meals. Apparently the crew took considerable delight in this situation and on arrival in Canada-I am not sure whether it was Quebec or Montreal-the crew told the passengers that if they said anything about it they would be sent back home.
As I said earlier, this story seems utterly fantastic, but I checked my sources of information and I am inclined to believe it is true. I believe it will be difficult to confirm this story because the events took place three years ago, but I hope if there is any truth in this story the minister will see to it that conditions such as this are not permitted to exist on ships bringing new Canadians to Canada. I hope the minister will be able to give us some assurances on this score.

Immigration


Mr. Elmore Philpoll (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to keep the house very long tonight. When I heard remarks from several speakers on the other side of the house to the effect that the department of immigration was all tied up in a policy of calculated confusion; and I heard this talk about the lack of humanity in the treatment of immigrants and that immigrants were being treated as statistics; I could not but help think that the experience of these hon. members was very different from my own. During the very short time I have been a member of this house and for several years before that I had occasion to deal with immigration cases, and during the time of the present minister and the period during which his predecessor held office I received every courtesy from the department and my experience was the exact opposite to that mentioned by some hon. members here today.
I would like to remind the house of one quite well known case involving two Korean boy refugees with whom I had some contact. As a matter of fact we had to get them out of the immigration shed at Vancouver by methods which I will not now reveal to the ex-minister of citizenship and immigration. But it is not true that we backed the hook and ladder truck of the Vancouver fire department against the window of the shed. We got them out by some other means. But when the war started in Korea and the R.C.M.P. suggested to some of us that it might be a good idea to have these Korean boys report, we were able to get them to report within three or four hour's of the time the R.C.M.P. suggested it to us.
I am just bringing that matter up tonight in order to remind the house that on that occasion the ex-minister of immigration, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), stretched the law to the utmost possible degree in the interests of human compassion. He did as the great Nelson did at one of his famous battles, when he put his blind eye to the telescope, in the interests of human judgment. I could cite several other instances which have never had one line in print, where when everything else failed and I was able to appeal to the former minister on the straight ground of compassion for a human being in distress, he went far out of his way and beyond the line of duty to do a great act of kindness to a human being in distress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he do that when he brings in the budget?


Elmore Philpott: For the benefit of my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I may say that was done before I was a member of parliament or had any idea of sitting here where I am tonight.

There is one point I wish to bring to the attention of the house. I had intended to do it on the estimates, but since we are now talking about immigration this seems to be a good time. We have in British Columbia a small but highly respected minority of what we call the East Indians. They have been a respected minority for many years. They are almost entirely of the Sikh religion. They are not Mohammedans; they are not Hindus. They are of the Sikh religion, which is a fine religion that believes in one God, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. I may say that these people practise their religion.
For many years the community did not grow. These people came here away back at the turn of the century. Most of them were in the wood business. For many years the restrictions were such that it was difficult for the young men in the community to bring out from India girls who were suitable as wives. The East Indians, like everybody else, as a general rule prefer to take their mates from among people of their own culture and religion and, I might say, most important of all, from among people who can cook the kind of meals they like to eat.
When India became a great free nation within the British commonwealth and when the East Indians of Canada were at long last enfranchised and became fully free and equal citizens of this great nation of Canada, this country made a treaty or an agreement of some kind with three new nations out in that part of the world, namely India, Pakistan and Ceylon. As a result of that agreement there is now a quota on East Indian immigration.
I am well aware of the fact that the arrangement we now have represents a tremendous advance and all concerned were glad to get it. But in my opinion it has served its purpose, at least at the level at which it is now fixed. I myself do not believe in quotas on any nation. I believe we should judge every human being on his merits when he applies for admission into our country. If there is no good reason why we should keep him out, and if there is every reason to believe that he will fit into our Canadian family life, we should let him in.
I would suggest for the consideration of the minister and the government that we should do one of two things. We should either make the quota arrangement more liberal, especially with regard to India-because almost all our immigrants from that part of the world come from India, not from Pakistan or Ceylon-or we should abolish the quota altogether.
I have just one final word to say. I have not said anything much on the question of

Chinese immigration and I do not intend to do so, but I want to leave this thought with the house. When we are dealing with the people of other nations whose laws with regard to marriage are not in all cases exactly the same as our own laws right down to the crossing of the last "t" and the dotting of the last "i" let us tend to take a broad-minded approach. Let us remember that great man King Solomon, whom we all hear about if we go to church or perhaps if we go to lodge; and let us remember that if we applied to him the same rules that we now apply to some of the younger sons of the second wives of Chinese immigrants he would never have been admitted into Canada if he had applied for admission as an immigrant. Let us just remember that if we draw the line too fine we may be keeping out more than one potential Solomon.


Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate this evening, but after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) I thought how different his experience was from the one I had this past summer.' I had the happy experience of coming to know a German immigrant who came to this country this summer and who worked for a friend of mine. During the summer he informed me that he had applied for the admission of his wife and five children, and that he hoped to bring them out. While he was waiting for them to come I spent some time in his company and became acquainted with him and his chum.
When I knew that the family were arriving at Montreal I found myself in that city, and went down to the wharf to see the arrival and the reunion of that family. I should like to take just a moment or two of the time of the house to describe the wonderful organization I saw at pier 4 in Montreal when that ship was unloading.
The first thing that happened was that all the baggage was taken off and laid out in alphabetical order in the A's, B's, C's, D's and so on right down that long pier. When the owners of the baggage came off the ship they were conducted to the rows of baggage which belonged to them, and they very quickly sorted out their hand luggage and were conducted from that position to the buses and taken to the train.
In all the army movements I have been on I have never seen a more complete organization than that which I observed on the arrival of that ship. The immigrants were conducted in a comfortable and orderly manner to the train and were dispersed to their various destinations. The freight, the heavy
Immigration
baggage they had-and they were allowed to bring large parcels-was moved off and arrived at its destination almost at the same time as did the immigrants themselves. In talking to Mrs. Manhardt, I was informed that they had only the choicest cuts of beef and that they had all the fresh vegetables, apples and oranges they could eat. They said that during the course of their trip, from the time they left home until the time they arrived in Canada, a period of some 12 days, they had better food than ever before in their lives.
I was very proud to think that the treatment of these new citizens on their passage to Canada indicated that they were coming to the land of plenty, and I am quite confident that the minister will see to it that the good conditions present on the ship which sailed from Holland that brought the Manhardts to Canada will continue. It is important that they exist. It is important that when these people are coming to Canada for the first time they should be provided with good service, shown every courtesy and given good food, as has been the case.
I would not have taken part in this debate if it had not been said that these conditions do not exist, when I knew from my experience last summer that the absolute reverse was the case, that they received the best treatment and were treated on their first trip to Canada much better, so far as food and general organization were concerned, than we were as soldiers.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks regarding the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I understand that during the first year of residence in Canada of an immigrant the department is responsible for the cost of any sickness or hospitalization the immigrant may incur, but that after the period of one year has elapsed the municipality and the province are saddled with the cost of hospitalization and so forth if the immigrant becomes ill and is not in a position to pay. I understand that in cases where the hospitalized immigrant is not able to pay a deportation order is issued against the immigrant and in some instances he is deported.
We all realize that none of us know when we may become ill and need hospitalization or the services of a doctor, but under the present set-up once a deportation order is issued the department immediately becomes a collecting agency for the hospital. These immigrants do not want to return to their homeland, and consequently their friends are called upon to dig up the funds to pay the hospital costs, and they do so.

Immigration
I had a case brought to my attention of a mother and father up in years, and their daughter. They were all employed, then the father lost his job. There is a certain amount of unemployment, whether or not the government is prepared to acknowledge it. Then the mother became ill. The family was not able to meet the cost of hospitalization and a deportation order was issued. There were no other members of the family in Europe to whom the mother could return. We call ourselves a Christian country, yet the department of immigration is a party to that sort of proceeding.
I asked one of the officers of the department how many deportation orders ars issued a year or week or month, and I was amazed to find that in this particular district it averaged two to three a week. I grant that all these deportation orders are not carried out, but the orders hang over their heads for the rest of their lives and I understand that these people will never be able to obtain Canadian citizenship. Surely some better method could be worked out. I suggest to the government that instead of only being responsible for the hospital expenses of immigrants for a period of one year they should be responsible for such expenses until such time as these people have an opportunity to become Canadian citizens, which is a period of five years.
There is one other matter which I believe I have mentioned before, namely that a good many people who would become good citizens would come to this country if it were possible for them to bring more of their capital with them. We know, of course, that some are without any great means, but there are others who would come here if they could bring their capital. I have suggested that some system should be worked out whereby loans would be made to them against the money or wealth they possess in their homeland, so they would have capital to use here when they arrive.
I also had it brought to my attention last summer that a couple of truckloads of people, who formerly lived in the northwestern part of our country but migrated to Mexico some 25 years ago, had returned to Canada. They brought with them their children who were born in Mexico. When these people arrived in Canada they failed to send their children to public school, and when it appeared that they would be required to do so they moved to another locality and thus avoided the education of their children. When I inquired about the matter I was told that these people were Canadian citizens and could not be kept out of the country.

I am not going to go into that point, but it seemed to me that it was a rather far-fetched story. I want to point out to the minister that the people in the community to which these people came were not too happy about the situation. When investigations were carried out recently with respect to whether the children were going to school the investigators were told that these people had moved out of the community. There were over 30 of them living in one house in a rural community not too far from London.
I point out these things to the minister. I hope the department will see fit to assume the hospitalization costs of immigrants who become ill so that the municipalities, already overburdened as they are with costs of one kind and another, will not be saddled with another burden, one that could be removed if the department would assume the responsibility.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this debate to say a few words on a particular phase of immigration matters that I have taken up with both the present minister and his predecessor. I am not going to go into the question of general policy now, but will deal with the policy of the department respecting certain people found more generally, I think, in the province of British Columbia.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) referred to the East Indian residents of British Columbia, and I can save time by saying that I agree with what he said and support him fully in the points he raised. I wish to take up the case of other persons of Asian origin in Canada, the Chinese. It is just possible the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) may have touched on this, too; I went out of the chamber while he was speaking, and I do not know.
I am sure the minister will know, even although he did not hold his present office at the time, that the Chinese benevolent association of British Columbia presented a brief concerning immigration laws and the citizenship act to his predecessor, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). I must say that I am in complete agreement with the association when they say they want to be put on the same basis as other residents in Canada in regard to immigration. I do not believe that is too much to ask.
I see the minister is paying attention, and he will find on page 3 of this brief-I am sure he has a copy of it on file-a request for modifications. Under that heading they say this:
As you know, the Chinese benevolent association has, on behalf of its members, long pressed and

still presses most strongly for the repeal of the discriminatory order in council P.C. 2115 and of the footnote thereto, and for the repeal of P.C. 2826 which replaces former orders in council P.C. 2743 and P.C. 4849. If, however, the total repeal of the aforementioned provisions of the immigration regulations is at this time impossible, we would petition for at least the following modifications to the immigration regulations.
I am not going to take up the time of the house by reading the modifications particularly requested. I do insist, however, that we should not have in this country two classes of citizens or even two classes of residents. What we do for a resident, let us say of Swedish nationality who is not a citizen, we should do for a resident of Chinese nationality, Japanese nationality, or East Indian nationality who is not a citizen. I feel the house will agree with me when I say that is not too much to ask.
Now I shall read the last request made by the Chinese benevolent association. I am going to say a few words about that, and then I shall conclude my remarks. This is clause (g) of the modifications the Chinese benevolent association would like to have made:
That in special cases or merit where circumstances of hardship exist, close relatives of Chinese Canadians such as parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters and stepchildren, and children not otherwise admissible because of their age, be allowed to immigrate to Canada at the discretion of the minister of citizenship and immigration.
The particular persons to whom I am going to refer do not fall within any of the particular relationships mentioned. During last winter it was brought to my attention by a person of Chinese nationality resident in Vancouver since 1910 that for a number of years he had been supporting two grandchildren in China. I believe the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) has full knowledge of this case as well, because I discussed it with him. He told me he knew this gentleman, who is a merchant in Vancouver.
This man emigrated to Canada in 1910. He went back to China twice, once in 1917 and once in 1925. On one of these occasions he was married and lived in China for some time. His wife lived in China until about a year ago. She stayed there from 1949 until 1954 solely in order to look after these two grandchildren. I believe it was the father of the children who had deserted the family. I took this matter up with the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) and he informed me, I think quite correctly, that under the regulations as they now exist there was nothing he could do. I am in the very happy position that in any cases I brought before either minister I received a most courteous hearing and possibly the most assistance they could give under the regulations.
Immigration
I believe that a certain discretionary power should be given the minister to deal with cases such as I have mentioned, 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. He is far more likely to be strict in the other direction. I would hope that the government might give some thought to this matter, because I think it is a very worthy point.
They should give some particular thought to the removal of the discrimination that now exists in connection with immigration matters pertaining to persons of Asiatic origin in view of world conditions at the moment, and particularly in Asia. We should be very careful that we do not discriminate or do anything that would indicate to the people of Asia that we consider them of any less importance than or in any way inferior to the citizens who may come to us from any other country.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: This is indeed an extraordinary situation. Since three o'clock this afternoon the house has heard a number of hon. members speak to a motion which is technically and, in fact, an expression of want of confidence in the government and indicts the government's immigration policy. As yet not one word has been heard from the treasury benches. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the former minister, now Minister of Finance, have been present in the house during the greater part of the debate and have had every opportunity to participate had they chosen to do so. Now, as the day draws to its close, the house is faced with a situation where the government has declined to take advantage of its opportunity to answer, if it has an answer, these charges that have been made against it.
This is indeed an extraordinary situation. Does the government feel so secure in the support of the large majority of members of this house that it does not feel called upon to state a policy or defend its administration? Does it expect that hon. members who meekly follow them when the division bells ring will rally to their expected duty again by expressing confidence in the government in this atmosphere of silence, without a word being said by the government concerning its policy or its administration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We wanted to hear the hon. member first.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister will indeed, then, have the opportunity. I am just sorry

Immigration
that his patience has been so extraordinary on this occasion. I might have been very happy indeed to have heard what the minister had to say, if he had anything to say, in defence of this record of administration of his department in the light of this indictment of it.
We have gone a long way apparently, Mr. Speaker, in this country in the policy and administration of this government from the time when the Prime Minister is reported in a Canadian Press dispatch of January 16, 1953, as saying:
Mr. St. Laurent, declaring this country has great opportunities, said, at the same rate of growth as the last half century Canada might have 35 million or 40 million people by the year 2001. "There is room enough for that number and for many more", he said, "and there is wealth enough for that number and for many more awaiting use and development".
I wonder whether the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) was aware of that statement of the Prime Minister. Perhaps it would be proper at this time for the Prime Minister to reiterate those views, if he retains them. Perhaps it would be opportune now if the Prime Minister made a declaration of policy on behalf of the government in relation to those views, if he still entertains them.
While I am on that subject, Mr. Speaker, I might quote to the same hon. gentleman an expression of opinion on this subject that is contained in a Canadian Press dispatch of October 9, 1952, in which the archbishops and bishops of the Catholic church in Canada are quoted as having expressed themselves to this effect in a prepared statement:
Immigration is a social question with many aspects. The church does not wish to pass judgment on the details of policy regarding immigration, but does point out to all that immigration is a moral question, subject to moral laws which should direct and inspire those whose duty it is to determine a policy on immigration.
Since God created the entire earth for man's use and benefit, the countries which have unoccupied lands should open such territory to people of over-populated countries.
The policy that governs the flow of immigration should be truly democratic and any regulations that would restrict in an arbitrary manner, the immigration of people from an over-populated country, or of refugees from persecuted lands would be contrary to the fundamental principles of justice and true peace.
Now, sir, I would have thought an expression of that kind would command the attention and respect of hon. members of this house. This country must, if it be true to itself and its history, look on immigration in a very different manner from most other countries of the world. This country was built by immigration. All of us in this chamber tonight are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, some the first generation, some the second, some the third, some even the seventh or the eighth. But this

country is an immigrant's country. The aboriginal population of this country is very small in numbers indeed. And, for that reason, all of us must approach a question of this kind with humane considerations as well as an honest and a realistic appreciation of the benefits that immigration has conferred upon this country.
Immigration has not been given sympathetic treatment in this house by this government. As we were reminded this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops, the studied attempt of the government year after year has been to thwart and frustrate discussion on immigration. When questions have arisen we have been told to bring them up on the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and in those characteristic manoeuvres of the government those estimates have almost invariably been brought down in the very dying hours of the session for the deliberate purpose, and no other, of restricting and thwarting discussion of that subject in this house.
And, sir, if there is one subject more than another that does call for the clarifying benefits of discussion in this house it is the subject of immigration, because of all the subjects on which the government has indulged in contradictory statements, I suppose immigration ranks pre-eminent among them. Think of it, as we were reminded this afternoon; on one day, January 28 last, we had contradictory statements made in this country by two members of this government on the subject of immigration.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has at least been consistent on this subject, and has been a spokesman year in and year out for more immigration for Canada. I have read statements attributed to him urging that Canada should have as many as 500,000 immigrants in a year. But on the very day the Minister of Agriculture was making his last pronouncement on this subject the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was making what one might have thought was a statement of policy in which he served notice that the government was not having any wider immigration and making it quite clear, as the statistics are making it quite clear today, that we may look for less immigration into Canada now than we have had in the past several years. Notwithstanding speeches bristling with contradictory statements by ministers of the crown no light is thrown on the subject in this debate, no effort has been made on the part of the government to establish clarity where contradiction now flourishes.
Well, sir, what has been the record in the face of a situation in the world today to which

we dare not close our eyes? We have been reminded in this house in recent days of the concern which conditions abroad in the world today force upon all Canadians. We have been called upon to make sacrifices, continuing and heavy sacrifices, to make a contribution to easing the threat of aggression in the world. May we at the same time indulge in the pastime of closing our eyes to the fact that in the world today covetous eyes are cast in the direction of Canada, her resources and her great broad lands?
Well, sir, if we are going to encourage a policy of making gifts to the world, gifts in various forms representing our share of the common responsibility of the free western world, to keep sanity alive in a frenzied world, then, Mr. Speaker, we had better do a little honest and searching thinking on the subject of immigration. Sir, I am satisfied, indeed I well know, that if some hon. members in this house who normally support the government would unlock their lips on this subject and speak from their hearts we should indeed hear some interesting speeches and some very telling indictments of government administration of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Immigration has brought great benefits to Canada; immigration in this post-war period has already brought vast benefits to Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hear the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say "hear, hear". Well, why does he not on the one hand rise in his place and tell us that the government's policy is to give fair encouragement, under proper safeguards, to immigration, and on the other hand see that his department is administered with some regard for humanity? Here is a statement concerning post-war immigration which appeared in the press of May 8, 1954, by E. B. Reid, chief of the immigration department information service:
About half these Immigrants were workers, he said. Their wages provided a total annual buying power of about $750,000,000.
If the government are really serious about immigration why do they not go about telling our people of the benefits which this postwar immigration has brought to Canada? We have had something over a million immigrants come to Canada since the war. Half of them have been workers, and those workers have created a total annual buying power of $750 million.


Walter Edward Harris: I made at least four speeches with that in it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is amazing that the former minister of citizenship and immigration has made his speeches in such places as have
Immigration
attracted so little publicity. Why did he not rise and say that in this house? There has been plenty of opportunity for him or his colleague who sits behind him to rise today and say that the government recognizes the tremendous benefits that immigration has brought to this country in the years since the war. There are hon. members opposite who could testify to this in eloquent terms, but thus far we have not heard from them.
On well-chosen occasions members of the government, and indeed the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, have permitted themselves to pay tribute to the great cultural enrichment that Canada has enjoyed by reason of the addition to her population of these immigrants who have come to this land to become members of the Canadian family. Why do they not say so today? Why do they not rise in this house and pay tribute to the great benefits we have obtained from immigration? Why do we not hear from them something about the dispersal throughout all parts of Canada of the benefits of immigration?
Here are some of the ways in which that great consuming and buying power of the immigrants has reacted to the general benefit. I am quoting from a study made by a Canadian organization within the past year:
The 1951 census revealed that 52 per cent of the post-war Immigrants lived in single dwellings, and that close to 40 per cent of them had been able to acquire their own homes, with over one-third of these home owners carrying no mortgage. The household conveniences which newcomers were able to provide for themselves not only created work in Canadian factories, but would also indicate that new Canadians were living on fairly good incomes. For example, mechanical refrigeration was to be found in 42 per cent of the newcomers' households, as compared with 47 per cent for the total Canadian aggregate. There were radios in 92 per cent of the Canadian households, but also in as many as 84 per cent of the newcomers' dwellings. While 42 per cent of the Canadian households were equipped with passenger motor vehicles, as many as 33 per cent of the newcomers' households had the same convenience.
These effects have been widely distributed over the Canadian economy. I turn now to a speech made recently by the Hon. Mr. Daley, minister of labour in the Ontario government:
It is not too much to say that without the large scale immigration of the post-war period, Canada's great industrial expansion would not have been possible. Workers were needed to go to remote areas where resource development was taking place, to work in the mines, in the forests, and on the power and transportation developments, and in many cases, immigrants took jobs which native-born Canadians would not accept. The new Canadians also made an important contribution in the factories and in the service industries in our large and growing centres. And in the immediate post-war years especially, workers were desperately needed on Canadian farms to replace those who had left to live in the cities.

Immigration
Let us face frankly the fears which immigration has engendered in some Canadians. Those fears have been principally on the grounds of race and employment. 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 composition of Canada. We subscribe most emphatically to that point of view.
There are those in this country who have feared immigration because they thought it offered a threat of assimilation into an English-speaking community. That is not our View of immigration. We would resist with all the power at our command as a party any attempt to use immigration for that purpose. We owe a duty to Canada to allay that fear that admittedly has existed in certain quarters. I say at the same time that the government owes it to the people of Canada to make a similar declaration to allay those fears.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. member not read the statement made by Mr. King on May 1, 1947, by which we still abide and in which a declaration of this character was made long before the Conservative party had any policy on the subject?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Observe that at last the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has found it possible to say something in this debate. But typically he has chosen to try to smuggle his statement into the midst of a speech made by another hon. member. If he has some declaration of policy to make which he thinks is worthy of attention, why has he not made it in the house before now?
I will tell him about the statement made by Mr. King. I heard that statement. The minister probably heard it from the gallery, and for all we know he may have inspired it. Apparently he has lost his sources of inspiration since, because we have been waiting for a long time for him to make some affirmation on that subject. I am glad that at last some remarks of mine have had the effect of drawing from the reluctant lips of the hon. gentleman a statement of this kind. Small credit to him that he sat through this long debate, and that it remained for an opposition member to make the statement that was made by myself just now to draw such a statement from the lips of the minister. He should have been in this debate early this afternoon declaring a policy on behalf of the

government and making a reassuring statement to those who have entertained fears concerning immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is just bashful.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister is just bashful? It is the first time we ever heard that jack-in-the-box or jumping jack was bashful.


An hon. Member:: Glamour boy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the government should offer some reassurance on this subject in order to allay the fears of those who have looked upon immigration as something offering a threat of racial assimilation. At the same time they should say that they will never use immigration as a weapon for that purpose. They should say that by respecting the constitution of this country they will give assurance, in those quarters where that fear now exists, that neither immigration nor attempts to override the constitution will be used to attempt assimilation or centralization.
The other fear that has existed in this country has been that immigration displaces Canadians in employment. I have given certain figures already to indicate how extensive has been the contribution to employment of immigration through the vast expansion of purchasing power in Canada. It is very true that in individual cases where someone sees an immigrant taking a position that he would have liked to have had he will say that in the net result immigration is destroying the employment of native-born Canadians. We must take a very careful look at both the short-term and long-term effects of immigration, and we must gear our policies as a country with both those factors in mind. I have mentioned the contributions to employment. Immigration is not simply immigration of persons alone. Many of these immigrants are enterprising people who are often accompanied by immigrant industries. The minister of labour in Ontario, Mr. Daley, whom I quoted a moment ago, in a recent speech also pointed out that 350 new industries had been established in Ontario by immigrants in the five years from 1949 to 1954.
Because of the fears which exist on this point, let us look at some of the important statements on this subject that have emanated in recent times from responsible labour leaders. At its annual convention in Toronto last September the Canadian Congress of Labour in its statement of policy advocated this policy in regard to immigration:
A planned immigration policy based on the country's capacity to absorb immigrants in an expanding economy without lowering the standard of living.

That, sir, is the declared policy of the Canadian Congress of Labour. Mr. Millard, a leading figure in the Canadian Congress of Labour and united steel workers, in a statement referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops, drew attention to the fact that Canada should take more immigrants, and that because our forefathers came to this country as a land of opportunity we have no right to deny the same benefits to many others.
But I turn to an article in the publication Labour Research, an organ of the Canadian Congress of Labour, the issue for May-June-July, 1953, in which the author takes up the point as to whether immigration actually deprives native Canadians of employment. After a frank review of the figures both for employment and immigration he proceeds to his conclusion:
It cannot be too strongly emphasized, however, that these figures have only a limited and negative value. They certainly prove that in most of the country, during most of both periods, immigration cannot have been a factor of any importance in the unemployment situation. But they do not prove that even in the exceptional cases where the number of immigrants who came in was somewhere near the increase in unemployment in the same period, the immigration caused the unemployment.
And further:
So the mere fact that immigrants came in and took jobs while Canadians were out of work does not prove anything. It certainly does not prove they did Canadians out of the jobs. Only a careful inquiry into what jobs the immigrants took, and whether Canadians could or would do them, would shed any light on that.
Therefore, sir, we say that our immigration policy in this country should be frank and realistic. It should not be a policy the government is trying to hide all the time. It should be a policy the government declares so people know about it, and so those who are planning immigration or are making their own plans with respect to immigrants' enterprise will know what to expect from year to year. We naturally subscribe to the idea of gearing immigration to the season. We have had occasion to criticize this government because of the large number of immigrants being brought into the country in
Immigration
winter. We are glad to see that our complaints in that regard have borne some fruit.
We look upon the many existing safeguards as quite adequate assurance that if the government is realistic in its immigration policy there is no reason to expect that immigration will result in unemployment. If due regard is had in the selection of immigrants to skill and enterprise, and the strength of organized labour in Canada is, as I believe it to be, great enough now to assure that immigrants are not used to destroy or weaken the standard of living in this country, then we can have immigration policies that will be of inestimable value to Canada.
Above all there must be the closest coordination between relevant government policies in this regard. We have had reason to complain, and we still complain, sir, that there has been a lack of co-ordination in this country in the efforts of the Department of Labour on the one hand, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on the other. There has been a lack of co-ordination between the efforts of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the one hand and the policy, or lack of policy, of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on the other.
In Australia, for example, the portfolios of labour and immigration are held by one minister. I do not know if that is practicable in this country, but there is need, and an imperative need, for co-ordination of the policies of the various government departments. With it all must go a recognition of the duty of the government to contribute to the creation of such a climate as will be favourable to the expansion of the enterprise of this country, and will be conducive to the expansion of the economy of Canada.
I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Fleming the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
'	
	
	
[Stage Direction]


	
	
	
	*
	
	
	
	
	[DOT]
	
		
	..	
	i. r .	
		
		
	*.	
		

	
	
	
	
	
	
	

		
		
		
		: .j: V .
	* c *.	
		
		
		
		
		,
		
		
		*
		[DOT]
		
		
		
		
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 16, 1955