1960-06-09

Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-75, to amend the Railway Act and to repeal the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.


Mr. Chevrier:: Explain.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The purpose of this bill is to give jurisdiction to the board of transport commissioners for Canada over the tolls and tariffs of motor carriers engaged in the business of carrying passengers and goods extra-provincially.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA-U.K.-INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSION OF FREE TRADE AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. 5. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition): May I ask the Prime Minister whether in the discussion he or members of the government had with the president of the board of trade of the United Kingdom the question of a free trade area as between Canada and the United Kingdom, or on a wider basis, came up for discussion.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: In so far as I am concerned, this subject was not discussed.


Mr. Pearson:: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he agrees with the statement reported to have been made by the president of the board of trade that this matter is now dead, that is the original United Kingdom offer.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not seen the statement allegedly made by the minister, but my answer to the first question still stands.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, notice of which has been given. Is the
minister aware of the statement made by the premier of Newfoundland on May 26 to the effect that the city of St. John's will not be appointed the agent of the province until the provincial government is assured that the federal government will amend the National Housing Act to make it lawful for the federal government to deal with the city of St. John's as the agent of the provincial government? Would the minister care to comment on this statement?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time I read many things that the premier of Newfoundland says, and I want to thank the hon. member for St. John's East for bringing this statement to my attention. Premier Smallwood seems to feel or has expressed the view that he feels it will be necessary to amend the National Housing Act before an agreement can be executed with the province and the city of St. John's as its agent.
This is not the case. Section 36 of the National Housing Act clearly states that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may undertake federal-provincial projects with the government of any province or any agency thereof pursuant to agreement made between the government of Canada and the government of the province. No amendment of the National Housing Act is required and, indeed, two federal-provincial projects have already been carried out with municipalities acting as the agent of the provincial government concerned. The city of Montreal is provincial agent for the Jeanne-Mance project in Montreal, and for the first federal-provincial project built in Nova Scotia the city of Halifax acted as provincial agent. This is well known to the premier of Newfoundland and I commented on it, as found on page 3630 of Hansard for this session. His minister, of course, was aware of it as long ago as March 10, 1959.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether it will be necessary, in order to implement such an agreement with St. John's, to have an agreement with the provincial government?


David James Walker: There is nothing more to explain, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is the minister also aware that at the same time the premier of Newfoundland said that the minister would not
4708	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry even make a good office boy for the Newfoundland attorney general?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It has been suggested that this question perhaps ought to be put on the order paper-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The premier's judgment is very sound.


Mr. Speaker:: -but it does not appear to be within the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Public Works.



INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE FOR WESTERN PRODUCERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the advanced stage of the session, is he able to report any progress in working out some scheme to provide assistance to the western grain growers in accord with their request?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a request has come from the liaison committee of the western farm organizations for a meeting with members of the cabinet. Arrangements will be proceeded with at once for the convening of such a meeting at an appropriate time.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I apologize for not sending notice, so perhaps he can take this as notice. Is the minister able to give the house any statement about the reported attack by an inmate of the women's prison at Kingston upon a matron, having in mind overcrowding and any other circumstances that may have contributed to the attack, the condition of the matron and the disciplinary steps which may have been taken following the attack?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: am sorry I am not able to give a full reply to the question because I do not have a complete report on the incident. I can say, however, with respect to overcrowding that, as I have stated previously, practically every one of our institutions is overcrowded. Steps are being taken to relieve the situation in the women's prison at Kingston by the construction, which I believe is now under way, of an additional dormitory.
[Mr. McGrath.)

With regard to the incident in question, I will obtain a full report and advise the house at the first opportunity.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, whom I am glad to see in his seat after his return from Saskatchewan.


Edmund Davie Fulton: His seat is perfectly safe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question is based on a release of today's date by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It is marked "for immediate release" and reads as follows:
Resources minister Alvin Hamilton announced today a further revision in the fees charged at national parks golf courses.
My question is, is the revision downward?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I apologize for not sending him notice, but it has just come to mind. Is the question of lake, river and water pollution generally going to be one of the subjects discussed at the proposed conference on conservation?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This subject is covered by background papers now being prepared in preparation for the conference. After these background papers are prepared a special committee will pick out the gist of these papers and decide which of these will make up the items on the agenda for discussion by speakers at the conference. Certainly water pollution will be one of the subjects before that conference.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister seen a

report that a Canadian trawler off the east coast of Canada was fined $50 and costs for fishing there while foreign trawlers are permitted to fish in the same waters? If so, will the minister say whether this situation will be allowed to continue?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I have not seen the article in question, Mr. Speaker, but it is quite possible that such a situation might arise if it were outside of Canadian territorial waters. In such areas, of course, we have no jurisdiction over foreign fishing vessels. Section 55 of the Fisheries Act, which was approved years ago by parliament and is still part of the act, prevents certain types of large Canadian trawlers from fishing in certain areas within 12 miles of our shore.


James Roy Tucker: I might inform the minister this was well within the 12-mile limit.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can make a report to the house on the progress of discussions between Canada and other governments with a view to the agreed extension of the jurisdictional sea zone to 12 miles for those countries which accept that width?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Certain preliminary discussions are under way, but I am not in a position to say anything further at this time.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether, in view of the unsatisfactory position of the bilateral air agreements between Canada and other countries, he was able to discuss with the President of the United States when he met with him the other day the question of renegotiation of the Canada-United States bilateral air agreement so as to give to Trans-Canada Air Lines the right to fly from Toronto to Miami and also the right to fly non-stop from Montreal to Chicago, in order to offset the advantages which two foreign air carriers get between Montreal and Chicago in so far as Trans-Canada Air Lines are concerned.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Before I give a direct answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not accept the thesis as to the unsatisfactory character or as to the disadvantages to which the hon. gentleman has made reference. However, I would say that that subject was not discussed between the President and myself.


Mr. Hellyer:: You missed a great opportunity.



ARCTIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: On
May 18, Mr. Speaker, I directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources the following question:
According to a New York publication, United States capital is pulling out of Canada's Arctic oil development program because of new tax regulations imposed by the Canadian government. Is the minister in a position to say whether or not United States companies are withdrawing their financial support of Arctic oil exploration?
The minister answered as follows:
No, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not in a position to say. The deadline for the taking up of applications for permits in the north does not expire until next month.
I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to advise the house as to the number of applications taken up and the number of applications which have been dropped.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The deadline for picking up priorities under the permits is June 24. No company would take those permits up before the last possible moment because of the fact that it would add to their expense by having to pay interest on the deposits, so we will not know where we stand until June 24.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether Canadian components of NORAD were placed on test alert yesterday, as reported in an Associated Press dispatch from Colorado Springs?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there was no test alert of any Canadian units yesterday.

Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS
On the orders of the day:


Frank Howard: I wonder if I might direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State along the same lines as the one I asked him on June 7, with respect to his making inquiries regarding certain returns, three in number, which had been passed during the month of February.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Stale):: I will inquire about these returns, Mr. Speaker. As far as those which the hon. member mentioned the other day are concerned, I have inquired and been advised that two of them will be tabled within a week and that the other one is under consideration now.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Labour whether it is a fact that the national union of public employees today urged upon the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour that some 90,000 non-professional hospital employees be brought within the jurisdiction of the unemployment insurance commission?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: That is the fact, Mr. Speaker. Such representation was made and the matter has been constantly under consideration to see whether these people can be included within the jurisdiction of the unemployment insurance commission.



INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF BONDS IN PORTFOLIO OF FUND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he is now in a position to give an answer to the question I put to him yesterday, as to whether or not the Bank of Canada was selling long term bonds of the unemployment insurance commission and purchasing treasury bills with the resulting funds.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I indicated yesterday that the Bank of Canada, as such, does not undertake this operation. They act as agent for certain purposes. I understood that the hon. member then pressed his question on my colleague the Minister of Labour, and an indication was given to him that he might well put his question on the order paper and receive complete statistical information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend that he stated he was willing to give an answer to my question. The question to the Minister of Labour was on another point altogether. I told the Minister of Finance yesterday that he was the last person in this house I would criticize, and I would not want to revise that statement in view of the reply he has just given today. May I ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of this explanation, he wishes now to indicate that he proposes to answer the question; because if the Bank of Canada is selling long term bonds this is an indication that the Bank of Canada is greatly concerned about unemployment in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is going too far with his statement. If he wants to ask the minister again whether he would review it-well, he has asked that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will ask it. Will
the minister give some indication as to whether or not he proposes to give this information?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will re-examine what was said yesterday in the hope that the hon. gentleman may not feel disposed to revise the opinion he expressed yesterday.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a request from any group of the Canadian Chinese community asking for an interview to discuss the current investigation into alleged illegal entries of Chinese into Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the suggestion was made for such a meeting. As to the particulars, I have not got them before me at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the Prime
Minister whether any arrangements have been made for such a meeting?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not that information.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister agree to arrange such a meeting at his earliest possible convenience, in order that a matter which is in the minds of the Chinese community can be discussed so there will be no undue reflection on the community at large?


John George Diefenbaker: With regard to the desire that there should be no undue reflection on the community, may I make it perfectly clear that there is none. So far as the earlier part of the question is concerned, the answer I gave to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate is complete.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue or, in his absence, of his parliamentary secretary. Can he inform the house whether it is true that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Montreal has promised one Rene Levesque to double his salary upon his return to its employ after his defeat as a Liberal candidate on June 22?

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



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
46. Departmental administration, $824,266.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. lady would be agreeable to having item 46 stand, as was done last year, and having item 50 called in order that we could have a

debate on immigration. Then the item on Indian affairs could be called and we could hold the administrative item until the end. I might say I think I can speak for my friends in the house when I say we would not, if that were done, renew any general debate on the administrative item.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I am quite agreeable to that course. I only suggest, though, that at the conclusion of item 53 we might take the citizenship branch and then take Indian affairs after that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that would be quite agreeable to us.


The Chairman:: Does the committee consent to the procedure outlined by the minister?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This comes rather out of the blue to us, but I presume our group would agree to the proposal. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that these arrangements are not fair to speakers who come down to the house-and we have one-prepared to speak on the departmental administration item. He has other duties to perform; he is very busy, but I suppose we are agreeable.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might say on that point that I did speak to one or two members about this yesterday before speaking to the minister.


Frank Howard: That may be true, but it is not always possible to contact everyone and communicate this information. That has caused the difficulty.


Jacques Flynn: Shall items 47, 48 and 49
stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
50. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,219,129.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, is the hon.
lady going to make a speech?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that at this time I should outline some of the views of the government on the matter of immigration. Canada is a nation of immigrants, and immigration policy has always been a prime concern of Canadian governments. Since June,
1957	this government has been carefully reviewing immigration legislation, policy and administration; not to make changes for the sake of change alone, but to arrive at some basic principles upon which to build a national immigration policy. I believe that as a result of the experience we have gained we are now approaching the point where we should be able to offer to the house specific proposals which will translate desirable principles into legislative form.
Already, of course, during the past few years a number of significant changes in policy and in administrative procedures have been made. Some of the most important steps taken by this government have been as follows:
1.	One of our first moves after taking office was to change the regulation which had formerly prevented Canadian residents of Asian origin from sponsoring the admission of their spouses and children until they became Canadian citizens.
2.	Next, the immigration appeal board was strengthened and its scope expanded.
3.	A new policy governing temporary residents of Canada was announced in August,
1958	which made it possible to regularize the status of several thousands of persons who had previously entered the country on a nonimmigrant basis.
4.	In co-operation with the provinces, significant improvements were made in measures providing for the welfare of immigrants after arrival.
5.	Another important change, which I announced to the house only last month,

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration simplified the arrangements by which residents of Canada may bring fiancees to this country. This beneficial change affects particularly Chinese and Japanese residents by freeing them from the necessity of posting large cash bonds before their fiancees can come forward.
Canada needs immigrants for many reasons, the most obvious of which is to provide skills and training necessary for the development of the country. Less apparent to many Canadians are the other immediate and long range advantages of immigration which I would like to summarize as follows:
1.	We need a steady flow of immigrants to balance and offset emigration from the country, which, although decreasing, is still substantial.
2.	Many immigrants bring productive capital to Canada, and establish businesses and enterprises which employ Canadian as well as immigrant workers.
3.	A small population in a large country results in a high per capita cost of maintaining transportation and communications facilities, defence and many other public services. Population growth, through natural increase and through immigration, helps to offset this.
4.	As our population grows, the resulting expansion of the domestic market encourages the attraction and development of units of production which cannot be based economically on a far-flung, low-density market.
5.	A steadily growing consumers' market in Canada, reinforced by immigration, reduces this country's dependence on imports and exports, and consequently makes our economy less sensitive to economic fluctuations outside our borders.
6.	New population stimulates economic, cultural and social activity, and makes possible for old and new Canadians alike the achievement of a higher level of cultural independence and creativity.
These are some of the reasons from Canada's own point of view why we need to continue to encourage a steady flow of suitable immigrants to this country. There are, of course, other considerations as well which we must also take into account, among them being our relationships with other countries and our responsibilities as a member of the larger international community.
How then do we proceed to develop an immigration policy and program which will reflect in practical fashion the various considerations I have just outlined? Obviously we cannot simply go ahead and bring to this country everyone who may wish to migrate, without regard to possible effects on our Canadian people or on the immigrants

themselves. Canada, it seems to me, has a responsibility to admit newcomers in accordance with our ability to provide opportunities for them and the capacity of our society to integrate them socially and economically.
Since we cannot take all those who might wish to live in Canada, we should admit those who are able to make a positive contribution to Canadian life, not simply in economic terms but in terms of what the immigrants can be expected to add to the variety and attractiveness of our society. The number of immigrants we can take at any one time will depend upon the rate of development in Canada and the capacity of our various levels of government to deal with the many problems arising from growth-The government aims at a policy of vigorous national development which will create new opportunities, not only for Canadians but also for those who will join us as immigrants.
Against the background of these larger considerations of national development policy it becomes clear that whatever may have been the practices and policies of earlier decades, we can no longer trust to chance to bring immigrants to our shores without counsel or guidance. We must continue by every reasonable means to develop and maintain a substantial flow of highly suitable immigrants, and at the same time avoid haphazard or arbitrary stimulations or restrictions of that flow, in other words the sudden turning on and off of the immigration tap which on occasion has given rise to difficulties in the past.
Immigrants coming to Canada must be prepared for what they will face here and be ready to properly accept their responsibilities and exercise their rights in Canadian life. Immigrants should be encouraged to go to those areas in Canada in which new population is most needed and where opportunities exist, rather than to congregate in the already overcrowded areas. It should at all times be our policy to take those measures which are necessary to ensure the prompt and effective integration into Canadian society of those whom we admit. This will be to the advantage of all Canadians, as well as promoting the unity of Canada itself.
It is of course the prerogative of Canada to decide who is to be admitted as an immigrant. No one has an absolute right to demand admission. If the government is to carry out an energetic, forward-looking immigration program, decisions must be made and the government must be able to decide in the interest of Canada which immigrants will be admitted and which rejected.
The administration must be able to choose from among available applicants those who

will be most suitable to life in Canada. We shall do our best to admit as immigrants individuals and families who are personally suitable and who have the required background and training to become worth-while citizens. This must be done on the basis of a system of selection which is fair and just, which will bring to Canada those settlers whom we need and who can become settled in our communities without dislocation to our way of life or hardship to the immigrants themselves.
In summary, what we are endeavouring to do is to develop an immigration program in which movements are properly planned, and we therefore avoid situations where arbitrary administrative action is required. In this way it should be possible to convince worth-while settlers that Canada is genuinely and continuously interested in receiving them and helping to find a place for them within our society. To ensure this result it is essential that the Canadian public, and prospective immigrants as well, should be assured that our policy is not a rigid but a flexible one, based on a consistent framework of principle, subject to continuing intelligent supervision, and capable of adjustment to meet the changing needs of a dynamic and growing country.
The key to our immigration policy will be the consistent application of proper selection standards designed to bring the best possible settlers to Canada. I am sure all Canadians would agree that once these standards are established they should be applied consistently to all who seek admission to this country, except where the admission of the immigrant is based on compassionate grounds or on close relationship; and, of course, in the case of refugees. Other immigrants, particularly those who will earn their living in Canada and compete in the Canadian labour market, will be examined to determine that they will be able to make their living successfully in Canada, that they will be likely to become good Canadian citizens, and that their admission will not result in disruptions in Canadian social and economic life. We shall, of course, continue to place strong emphasis on the selection of immigrants who will establish productive enterprises in Canada which will create employment for themselves and for Canadians.
A program conceived and developed along the lines I have outlined will, I am sure, bring results of lasting benefit not only to future immigrants themselves but to all of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have listened with great interest to the statement the minister has just made. I will not comment now on her
9,	1960	4713
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration forecast about those amendments to the Immigration Act which were so urgently required four or five years ago and which, after three years in office, the government still has not seen fit to bring before the house. It was very easy for hon. gentlemen opposite -and it was not so much the hon. lady who criticized the former administration but her colleagues, in particular the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister-to be critical four and five years ago, but it is an extraordinary thing that, since they have been in office, no change of any fundamental character has been made either in the legislation or in the regulations which existed at the time the hon. lady assumed the portfolio she now holds.
As for the statement of the general principles upon which our immigration policy is based, the hon. lady might just as well have saved herself the trouble of original composition and read the excellent statement which Mr. Mackenzie King made in this house on May 1, 1947; because she has not deviated in any single particular that I can discover from any aspect of that statement.
I must say that in view of the harsh and indeed brutal criticism to which I was subjected during the three years I held the portfolio which the hon. lady now holds, it is perhaps understandable that I should take a little satisfaction in the fact that the government has, substantially, found nothing to improve on in what they found when they took office. I think this is particularly important, and especially true, in view of some of the opinions expressed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice when they were sitting on this side of the house.
I am interested that the hon. lady should have asserted as emphatically as she did this fundamental principle that it is the prerogative of the government and parliament of this country and of no one else to decide who shall be admitted to our shores. I do not quarrel with that view at all. I have always upheld it, and I do not see how it would be possible to take any other view and expect to get the support of the Canadian people for it. But I may say there was a time when the previous administration was attacked for taking that view.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not by us. When in opposition we never quarrelled with that point of view. We quarrelled with the administration of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Justice is anxious to get into this debate, and later on I intend to read some of the statements made by him to show how wrong he is. I agree that the Minister of Justice was a little more subtle than the Prime Minister. I think he has a subtler mind. He put a few
4714	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration safeguards around his words. But if he looks at some of the language the Prime Minister used when he was over here the hon. gentleman will see clearly what I am driving at.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because the hon. member has mentioned my name, may I tell him that I regret I will not be able to be here much longer. However, I believe the record will speak for itself, and I have no objection to the hon. member quoting me whether I am inside the house or outside of it. I think the hon. member will find that I did not disagree with regard to the right of Canada to determine who shall come to her shores.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister will agree that I have never quoted him out of context. Any quoting that I do to illustrate my point will be just as fair as it would be if he were here. However, I do not want to labour this point, because there is something of much more immediate importance that I wish to say. After all, this is now a matter of agreement-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It always was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad to note this agreement from now on between the two sides of the house on this fundamental point, because everything really stems from it.
I took note concerning those changes which the hon. lady stated she had made in the regulations or the administration, and later on I will say something about them. She gave five or six examples, and I took them down as well as I could. But I think the hon. lady made a mistake about one of them. It was probably only a slip of the tongue, but I do think the matter is important. She said something about the regulations having been changed to permit Canadian residents rather than Canadian citizens of Asian origin to apply for relatives. I think the hon. lady meant to say "Canadian citizens who have origins in certain countries" because if she will look at the regulations as they were amended on May 24, 1956, she will see that since that date there has not been anything in the Canadian law or regulations about the racial origin of immigrants. Since 1956, when the regulations were amended as a result of the decision in the Brent case, the question of who might apply, the categories of persons who might apply, has been a purely geographical one. In the case, let us say, of a % citizen of China who is being applied for, it does not matter whether that person is of Chinese or French or English origin; no matter what he may be, if he is a citizen of China the same law applies to him.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think the hon. gentleman misunderstood me. It is true today that the sponsor in Canada has the right to apply


whether he is a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant. I think the hon. gentleman himself, when he held this post, made some alterations which had to do with five years of residence rather than the applicant being a Canadian citizen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My whole point is that if the hon. lady was using the word "Asian" in a geographical sense, I am sure she was right; if she was using it in a racial sense, it was wrong. I do think that this was an important ' change which was made on May 24, 1956. All Canadians should be glad that this change was made. It was one of the few things I did when I was minister which received commendation from the opposition.
I notice that a lot of articles are still loosely written saying people are penalized because of their race. That is no longer true in any rational sense of the term. It is true that there are certain countries from which we encourage immigration and other countries from which we do not encourage it. I do not really believe that the vast majority of the Canadian people would want that kind of principle of selection changed, though they might wish some changes made within the categories; and changes are, in fact, made from time to time. But it seems to me that is a really fundamental change that was made which we should be glad was made and which I think it is very important to emphasize at all stages.
What I really want to devote most of my time to is something which has happened very recently about which I am very critical both of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Justice. I refer to the investigation which, as we learn from information that comes to us from outside the house but about which we can get extraordinarily little information inside the house, is being carried on into the Chinese immigration that has taken place since the war.
I have in my hand a very detailed press report from the Vancouver Sun of May 24 last which purports to give an interview with Commissioner Harvison of the R.C.M.P. I do not intend to put this on the record. I am sure all hon. members who are really interested in this matter have read it, and I think many of them have been very much shocked by the information contained in that interview. There was also, as hon. members know because it has been alluded to already in the house, an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail on May 25 written and dispatched from Ottawa on May 24 by Mr. Langevin Cote, their correspondent here, from

which I want to read one paragraph because it seems to me it is very important. It reads as follows:
It has been reported that as many as 11,000 Chinese of 23,000 who have come to Canada since 1946 have entered the country illegally. R.C.M.P. commissioner C. W. Harvison, to whom this estimate was attributed, said the figure was not his but that he would not disagree with it.
The Minister of Justice said on Monday, I think it was, that this figure was not the official figure of the R.C.M.P. The press report does not suggest that it was the official figure of the R.C.M.P. But I feel that the government has made a very great mistake in not having the Prime Minister or some other minister come into the house and make a statement about this matter as authoritative as it would be possible to give in the circumstances. I think it is very unfortunate that anything was said about this investigation until the police were in a position to lay charges against those people, if there are any, with respect to whom there were grounds to lay such charges. I have no doubt that such an extensive investigation as this appears to be is going to result eventually in some charges being laid. If not it is going to be a most shocking waste of public funds.
But the situation we are faced with at the present time is that the 23,000 Chinese who have come into this country as immigrants, pratically, although not quite, all of whom have come here allegedly as the sons or daughters or wives of Canadian citizens or more recently of Canadian residents, though I would imagine the number in the latter category would be relatively small, find themselves in the position that a cloud of suspicion hangs over all of them and over all their relatives, which virtually means over the whole Chinese Canadian community. It does seem to me that it should have been possible to remove that cloud before now.
I have had a good deal of experience with these matters, and I do not want to say anything here that will be in any way irresponsible. I do know, as a fact, that certain irregularities did occur, because of information subsequently turned up in one or two cases that came to my attention. I would not be able to mention those cases now without access to the departmental files, because I probably have nothing in my own files. I do recall a case where a Chinese was admitted to this country who alleged that he was 18 years old. It subsequently turned out that he was really 25 years old, but he was still the son of the person he represented himself to be. I also know there have been cases where children of Chinese Canadian citizens have alleged that they were unmarried so as 79951-0-297
9, 1960	4715
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to come within the regulations when in fact they were married. This is a technical offence, one that I suppose in ordinary circumstances no one would wish to condone.
But the circumstances were not ordinary. We know that for many years there was a statute of this country called the Chinese immigration act, which is one of the few things in the record of the Liberal party of which I, as a Liberal, am not very proud. It had the effect of bringing about the separation of families of immigrants to Canada of Chinese origin. In the year 1947 that act was repealed and the present regime was established, and in order to undo the very unfortunate effects of that act various steps have been taken.
I am not going into the full history of that now but the purpose was to provide, as quickly as it might be done, for the reunion of families, to admit the wives of persons who became Canadian citizens and therefore indicated they wished to stay in this country, and to admit their unmarried children. The only reason that admission was confined to unmarried children was, of course, that a chain of immigration would have been set up that would have been very hard to control because of the lack of facilities of any kind that could be made available in China to provide accurate information.
This problem was subsequently very greatly complicated by the fact that, though there was no war between China and Canada, from 1950 to 1953 Chinese troops were fighting Canadian soldiers in Korea. During all that time the government of this country admitted Chinese immigrants; it is true there was only a limited number of persons from China admitted because of the relationship. In order to have any kind of control and any reasonable certainty about the identity of these persons there had to be a relatively strict regime, and that is why there was. When one thinks that it was perhaps almost unique in modern history that immigrants should be admitted to one country from another country when the troops of that country were fighting our troops, one can say that it was an example of liberality, toleration and good sense of which I think Canadians have every right to be proud and in which I personally am very proud to have had some part, although the major credit goes to Mr. Mackenzie King, Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Walter Harris, who had the most to do with the problem and the maintenance of that policy during the critical period.
As I say, in order to make sure, particularly once the communist regime was established in China, that our limited immigration was not permitted to become an avenue for the
4716	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration back door infiltration of communist agents-I said this as early as 1955 in the committee on estimates, as I am sure the Minister of Justice will recall-it was felt by the government responsible at that time and has been felt by the present government since that these controls had to be maintained.
Now, I must say I could never find it in my heart to blame very much those applicants who represented themselves as being single when they were in fact married, or who represented their age as being something other than it was. You may say, why do we not change the regulations and let all the married applicants in? I have tried to explain that. You would have an insuperable problem in doing that because the married ones, in turn, would have children, and the opportunities for illegal entry would be vastly increased, as I am sure the hon. lady would agree.
I am going to recommend to the government, and I am doing this without seeking to be unduly critical, that many of the problems they now have as a result of this investigation could very easily be removed if the minister, the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister would say, on behalf of the government, that the government has no intention whatever of opening any case or dealing with any case where those people who entered were the sons, daughters, wives or parents of 'Canadian citizens of Chinese origin, even though they may have misrepresented some of the other facts for which the department asked.
If a categorical statement of that sort could be made that this was not, after all, considered so serious as to necessitate the reopening of these cases, I believe most of the uneasiness and concern in the Chinese Canadian community would be ended at once. I believe that until that is done there is not the slightest real hope, if one is going to be realistic about it, of getting any information from anyone or any real co-operation from anyone in the Chinese Canadian community in assisting in the investigation.
I do believe there are a good many people in the Chinese Canadian community who have been victimized. I said as early as 1956, when I was questioned on this-I brought the reference here in case anyone wants me to repeat it, but I do not believe it is necessary-that although I had no proof in any particular case I was quite sure there had been a number of fraudulent entries. I was afraid, because there are no reliable vital statistics in China and because of other difficulties in respect of this immigration, that there were a few people slipping through all the time. I am sure there have been cases where people have been blackmailed. I feel


sure that there are people in the Chinese Canadian community who would like to assist in having this practice stopped, but I do not believe it is reasonable to expect that they will do anything about it if they believe the result is going to be to bring reprisals or bring any kind of action against the relatives of Chinese Canadian citizens who have come here in a technically illegal sense.
I am seeking, therefore, to criticize as little as possible, because I know from my experience that this matter is very difficult. I have not forgotten the way I was assailed in 1955, when I had had very little experience in this department, because I refused, as I believe the present minister would refuse to show certain people the departmental files on these cases so they could get, as I suspected some of them wanted, additional information to facilitate illegal entries. I was accused by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Justice of being arbitrary and tyrannical because I took that position. I must say that I think I would have no choice, with any sense of responsibility, but to take it again. I have accused the minister of many things, and I am going to accuse her of many more things before I am finished. However, I am sure the minister does not want, any more than I do, to encourage the breaking of the law or to treat with inhumanity those people who may have been guilty of some technical breach but no other kind of breach.
I do say to the minister that I believe this matter should be cleared up, and cleared up at once. By that I do not mean for a moment that the investigation into genuine criminal activities should not be completed. Of course it should. If the minister finds that certain people were taking advantage of our laws and of our liberality-because when you compare the way we treat immigration from China with the way any other country in the world treats it, it is very liberal-then they should be dealt with accordingly. If these people are taking advantage of that position to bring undesirable people to North America, of course every effort should be made to stop that practice. If an effort is being made to get people into this country who ought not to be here, who are a danger to the security of Canada or the security of the free world, of course that should be stopped. If people are being blackmailed with that or any other end in view, that should be stopped. If it is true, as I have read in some of these press stories in papers like the Toronto Telegram-I do not know that I should say "papers like the Toronto Telegram"; I should say in the Toronto Telegram because perhaps there is no other paper like

it-that bribes have to be offered in order to get officials to do their duty, then that should be investigated.
I would not believe this story unless I had proof of it. I have had a lot of experience and I do not believe there is any more honest, trustworthy staff in any department in any government anywhere in the world than there is in the immigration branch. This is not to say they are not human like all the rest of us. There may occasionally be some one who is susceptible to various kinds of temptation.
I say these things should be found out, and there should be the greatest vigour in any such investigation. But I do say if this investigation is to amount to anything, if we are to get anywhere with it, it is of the utmost importance that we should make clear at once that so far as those people who are relatives of Chinese Canadian citizens are concerned, who may have committed some technical irregularity in connection with their entry, they are not going to face deportation or any other charges.
A few such cases came to my notice when I was minister. One of the ways in which they came to my notice was this. Someone who had been admitted three or four years before as a single person would then apply for the admission of his wife and children. Well, when that happened there was prima facie evidence that he had not given accurate information before. I have regarded that as one of the facts of life, if I may put it that way. There were cases where I admitted the wife and children afterwards.. As I say, it seems to me that this is the nub of the whole difficulty.
The other thing that I think is rather unfortunate is this rather extravagant publicity that seems to have been occasioned. I am not saying I directly blame the commissioner of the mounted police, but I think it would have been better if he had not given this interview at all. Once you get a headline like this, "Racketeers average $4,000 per head", and then you get statements about 11,000 so-called illegal entries, they call it a $44 million racket. Anyone can do elementary arithmetic and can see where these figures come from. No doubt there were one or two cases in which somebody spent $4,000, and then someone else said there were 11,000 cases.
You multiply the two and you get $44 million. I would greatly doubt whether all the Chinese Canadian applicants together, if they took their property, would be able to find $44 million to engage in this racket. Sometimes these stories are so manifestly absurd on their face that one wonders why people write them at all without first doing a little bit of mental arithmetic. As I said, 79951-0-2974
9, 1SSQ
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration having regard to the exaggeration in this whole matter and the indictment of a whole section of the Canadian Chinese community, which has a record for obeying the law that many of the rest of us .might envy, it seems to me that it is really of the utmost importance that this matter should be cleared up without delay.
I have a number of other things about which I want to talk but, Mr. Chairman, since one may speak as often as one can catch your eye I think I ought to yield the floor at this point to somebody else.


Mr. Winch:: There are two or three matters under this particular vote upon which I would like to speak quite briefly. I must admit that I find some of the policies, the regulations and the administration of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration most confusing, and I hope the minister, during the course of the discussion of her estimates, will be able to clear away some of that confusion.
One point that I find most disturbing and am unable to understand-and I think a great many other people are in the same position -is the basis upon which the department puts out publicity in an endeavour to bring immigrants into our country. Just over a month ago, as a matter of fact during the Easter recess, when I was home in Vancouver I had the opportunity of seeing copies of newspapers from the United Kingdom and other countries containing advertisements put out by the minister's department outlining a great many things about our country and its potentialities, and then enumerating opportunities that were open in Canada for people from those countries if they desired to come here. When we have in Canada over half a million unemployed, and when we have a particularly serious situation in the construction industry, for the life of me I cannot understand why the Department of Citizen-shop and Immigration should be advertising overseas to the effect that there are openings in the same areas in which we have thousands upon thousands of unemployed. For the life of me I cannot understand that policy.
I noticed that, according to the newspapers here in Ottawa only this week, it was stated in the trades and labour council that over 50 per cent of the carpenters and construction workers of Ottawa were unemployed and had been unemployed for months. I know that in my own city of Vancouver in the construction industry we are facing a serious situation; that approximately half the carpenters, half the painters and half the electricians are unemployed and that some of them have been unemployed for almost a year, with a great many of them having run out of unemployment insurance benefits and having been cut
4718	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration off seasonal benefits. With that situation in existence, why the minister should authorize or permit advertising outside ot the country inviting carpenters, painters, electricians and concrete workers to come to Canada and saying there are openings here for them is something I do not understand. As I say, it passeth all comprehension.
When we have the statement of the Prime Minister, as reported in the press when he was in the United Kingdom recently, that we will welcome tens of thousands of new Canadians, and when we read the statement made by the minister south of the border some time ago inviting Americans to come here and enumerating certain trades in which there are thousands of unemployed in this country I say that we find the situation very confusing.
Of course we should like to have immigration, but surely it should be on a planned basis, whereby we know that the immigrants can be assimilated. Although we have this recognition of the fact that we can and will grow, and that we can eventually have a bigger population, I have no hesitation in saying that our first responsibility is to the people who are in Canada now. It is unfair to the Canadian professions and to the workers who are out of work, and it is unfair to those whom you are inviting to come here when you are doing it under false pretences.
The minister must know of the type of advertising that has been put out in the past few months and of the enumeration of trades in which it is said there are openings, and that it is just barefaced misrepresentation. I hope we can have an explanation as to why that particular policy has been adopted or why that particular type of advertising has been put out under the particular circumstances which apply in some of these trades and professions here in Canada today, which have existed for some time in the past and which, from all indications, seem likely to exist for some time in the future.
That is all I want to say on that particular phase at the moment. However, I should like to add the hope that greater care will be exercised in the investigation of those who make application to come to this country-if we are in such a position that they can be accepted-in order to see that if objection is raised to their coming it is not just on the basis of the declaration of somebody else. I think it is most unfair-and we have had this matter come to our attention on more than one occasion-that a person can be turned down, with no reason being given as to why he has been turned down.
I know I had a case-it was not under the present minister, but it illustrates my point- in which a large family consisting of some


small children and some children who were grown up, married and had their own children; the entire family-were allowed to come in and then at the last minute one son was told that he could not come. Just one out of a large group was refused admission. I think the whole family, counting in-laws and everything else, would have numbered about 26. Yet one son was told no, and he never could find out why.
This happened in my home constituency, so I took up the problem. It took me almost two years to have an investigation made as to why that one son was refused admission. He never knew and to this day he does not know why he was refused. However, the minister eventually had an investigation made, and it was found that the man had been rejected because somebody had gone to one of the field officers and said the man was a criminal. No investigation was made; the statement was just accepted. Yet we finally found out that the man had never had any criminal record whatsoever. The trouble was that the person who made the objection was sore because this man had married the girl he wanted to marry. Hence he just put in a complaint, and that one person was stopped. Eventually that individual was allowed to come to Canada. However, that is the sort of thing that has happened more than once, namely the acceptance of a statement from somebody without investigation. If that man had been told why he was rejected the matter could have been cleared up in five minutes. But no; the policy is that you must never tell when they ask. I think more care should be exercised in matters of that nature.
May I also say this, because it is in a similar vein, although perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will not agree. I want to say that I completely understand why no person should be allowed to just go and ask for information about one individual, as to why he had been turned down, or ask for the basis on which he was allowed into this country. But when we have an individual who asks for that information himself, or who says that he would not mind having the reason a certain position was taken disclosed, then I think in the name of far-famed British justice that individual should be entitled to that information or to have it made public.
Mr. Chairman, I have never been able to understand this absolute cloak of secrecy, which can only be for one purpose-the minister has dealt with it time after time- namely for the protection of the name of the individual. But if the person concerned wants to know or wants the information made known, then why should not that be allowed?

And that is most important when tied in with what I have said previously, because I say without any hesitation that time after time the department accept what they are told and do not investigate, and they can be wrong very often. I think a person should have the opportunity, if he so desires, of being able to disprove any allegations made against him by asking for information which has been laid about him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman realize that the argument he is now making is precisely the argument made by the Minister of Justice when he was sitting over here, yet there has been no change in three years?


Harold Edward Winch: I was not going to raise that point. I was going to approach it on the basis of what I think they should be doing now irrespective of what they did or what they said before. I try to carry everything on a very high plane. Mr. Chairman, I think that is just common, ordinary day to day justice, and I do hope the minister will consider altering her attitude on this matter.
There is one other item I would like to bring up at this point, and that is that I hope the minister will give us an explanation of the basis upon which she decides who can and who cannot come into this country as a landed immigrant. I have particular reference here to people who come from countries where their skin may be of a different colour to our own. I know, and it has already been stated by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that the immigration policy of Canada is supposed not to discriminate because of race or colour. That sounds pretty good, but I want to say that as far as the policies followed in Canada are concerned, whether you want to admit it or not Canada does follow an immigration policy of discrimination because of race or colour.
Mr. Chairman, this is proved by the fact that we have for some countries what is known as a quota system. A quota system is discriminatory, whether you want to call it that or not. I would like to know on what basis quotas are set and how you decide the numbers to be admitted as between one country and another. But in particular I would like to have an explanation of the quota system as it applies to the countries of the commonwealth.
I thought that in this commonwealth we were proud of and boasted about the fact
9, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that we were all partners in a common commonwealth, that there was no differentiation between the countries of the commonwealth because of race or colour. Yet the policy of Canada is one of discrimination as between members of the commonwealth because in some countries they are black and in others they are yellow; therefore they are placed on a quota system.
To me there is something fundamentally wrong with the way Canada develops an immigration policy when countries outside of the commonwealth are not put on a quota system and we allow their people to come in even though they may have been our enemies in two world wars. Nazis who fought against us are now in Canada, and they still maintain they are nazis. I know of one man I met in Toronto who boasted that he was a fighter for freedom in the last war. When I asked him what side he fought on he told me that he fought for Hitler. Yet we allow those people in because they are white; there is no quota.
Why is it that people from countries outside of the commonwealth, countries which were our enemies, come in free of quota, but inside the British commonwealth a quota system is established with regard to countries whose citizens are either black or yellow? I think that is wrong. It is so wrong in my estimation that I think it makes mockery of a great many of the high sounding statements and principles about which we hear so often from the Conservatives. I say that it breaks down commonwealth countries as far as our immigration policy is concerned into a series of classes, and I do not think we should break down the commonwealth into a series of classes because of differences in race or colour. This principle makes a mockery of the commonwealth, and I do not like to see that being done.
I can say very definitely that last year when I had the opportunity of attending the commonwealth parliamentary conference in Australia, where I met representatives from the commonwealth parliaments, I found they had only one criticism of Canada, and that was why we discriminated against other parts of the commonwealth through the medium of the quota system. I sincerely hope that during the course of the discussion of these estimates these points I have raised, namely the form of advertising in telling people to come here when there are no opportunities available, not making full investigations as to whether statements made against people are correct, and this matter of quotas will be fully explained by the minister.


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to make two suggestions to the minister
4720	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration regarding possible changes in the immigration regulations so far as they affect Chinese. However, in making these suggestions I, as the first representative in this house of Chinese descent, am saddened by the fact that my task has been made difficult by some members of the Chinese community who, through their activities have brought all Chinese communities under a cloud of suspicion. The government cannot be blamed for these investigations into alleged irregularities in Chinese immigration, but rather the blame must lie on those who have sought to prey on the very understandable desire of those who wish to join members of their families in Canada.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate says that he agrees immigration is a privilege, and that is a sound principle. However, many people believe that immigration is not a right but a privilege extended to a national of a foreign country, and that it cannot be demanded as of right by that foreign national except in certain circumstances as defined by the government of the country into which the immigrant seeks admission. Whether these defined circumstances that have been laid down by the government of Canada are too narrow is another matter. If they are they can always be changed, but until that event the law must be administered as it is now laid down.
The members of the Chinese community recognize that within their midst there may be some who have contravened the law. The members of the Chinese community as a whole would be the first and indeed are the first to agree that such offenders should be dealt with by the law if they have in fact been found guilty. But because of the figures that have been published in the press regarding the large numbers of alleged illegal entries, many Chinese feel that all the Chinese community are under a cloud of suspicion.
I know the minister has stated that her department will deal with the problem in a humanitarian manner, and the Prime Minister has also stated in this chamber that the great majority of Chinese in Canada are held in respect; but in view of the conflicting figures repeated in the press concerning the number of alleged illegal entries I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the interview given by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was perhaps ill-advised. I would therefore suggest to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and also to the Minister of Justice that no further press interviews be granted by the R.C.M.P. until the investigations have been completed. Certainly no one would wish to see a witch hunt in that sector of the community which has always


been regarded as law-abiding, and I am sure the innate sense of fair play which all Canadians have will not allow the reputation of the Chinese community to suffer.
I have made representations regarding these investigations to the minister on behalf of the Chinese benevolent association in Vancouver, but I would be grateful if the minister could advise later on whether she has received similar representations from the association and what reply she has made to them.
I may be impertinent in doing so, but to the Chinese themselves I extend the facilities of my office, such as they are, to those who wish to regularize their entry. I understand and appreciate that for many there are barriers such as language and fear which would make them either unable or unwilling to communicate with the officials of the department. I am prepared to make representations to the minister on their behalf, and I can only hope that my personal reputation is such that it will inspire confidence in those who wish to come forward.
Hon. members can realize that I have had a very heavy responsibility in so far as Chinese immigration is concerned, being the only representative of Chinese extraction in this house. It would be very easy for me to speak out loudly on the discriminatory aspects of Chinese immigration regulations but I have not done so, Mr. Chairman, because I wanted to establish myself as a parliamentarian rather than as a person whose usefulness was restricted to speaking on minority rights alone. I wanted to study the problem so that when I did speak I would be listened to as a person who had demonstrated that he could look at a problem along broad lines.
While hon. members will recall that I spoke on this subject of Chinese immigration in my maiden speech in 1957, hon. gentlemen will also recall that I was sued for libel by Weldon Chan because of a letter I had written in reply to a woman in West Vancouver. For the record I wish to relate the circumstances of that case, because the case against me was only dismissed comparatively recently and until it was disposed of by the courts I could not make any statement about it. Briefly the facts were as follows. On December 3, 1959 I received a four-page letter from a woman by the name of Miss Alex Toppin of West Vancouver. I do not know this woman and to the best of my knowledge I have never met her. Her letter reads as follows:
2246 Bellevue Avenue West, Vancouver, B.C.,
2 December, 1959.
Dear Mr. Jung:
I have just come home from St. Paul's hospital where I have been visiting Mrs. Chan, wife of

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
the man whom the immigration authorities are trying to deport from this country.
This whole affair is really disgraceful and I am writing to you to try and do something to help them. As a British subject I believe in justice for peoples of all nationalities. If Chan is caught and deported there will be adverse comment on Canada throughout the entire civilized world. This is the international refugee year. This man is an admirable citizen for any country to have. He has done nothing radically wrong, and to send a British subject back to overcrowded Hong Kong is really bordering on the fringe of lunacy and an absolute travesty of British traditions of justice and fair play. Canada is a British flag country and I feel that every thinking person should protest in the strongest possible terms about what is happening to these people.
Mrs. Chan is a slight, anxious young woman, a most pathetic figure. I have today seen Harry Fan the lawyer who is representing them and he tells me Mrs. Chan is going to Ottawa on Sunday. I hope that the minister will look into this case again.
There are basic human rights at stake here and I think that the minister should remember in the sight of God all men are equal and that the colour of our skins or our racial origins are a mere accident of birth over which we have no personal control. I am not personally Chinese but Irish, and we do not like to see our fellow human beings subjected to indignities for no proper reason.
I am a member of the Vancouver civic unity association. I understand that the association have already sent you a letter about the Chans, but have had no reply and I know that the human rights people are also interested in the case.
If all else fails I am going to write to Her Majesty the Queen. My father has the honour of being on the royal household staff in his capacity as the Norroy and Ulster king of arms and I know that Her Majesty would intervene if the position were made clear to her. It is quite usual at home to bring these kind of things to her notice.
Awaiting your reply,
Sincerely,
Alex Toppin (Miss).
My reply to Miss Toppin was contained in the following letter:
Ottawa, Ont.
December 4, 1959.
Miss A. Toppin 2246 Bellevue Ave.,
West Vancouver, B.C.
Re: Weldon Chan.
Dear Miss Toppin,
I acknowledge your letter of December 2 with reference to Mrs. Chan.
I have received representations from other sources who are interested in this case, and I have made inquiries from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I am not at all happy with the results of my investigation. In the first place, I do not think that a husband should desert his wife and family. Whatever merit he had to his case would have vanished in my mind because his action indicates that he is not capable of accepting his basic marital obligations. If he is capable of treating his family in such a way, what can we expect from him as a Canadian citizen? Does he treat all his duties and obligations so lightly?
I am of Chinese ancestry, as you know, but in matters of this kind, I think as a Canadian. We do not want a recurrence of the George Hanna case. I have made representations to the minister of previous cases which in my opinion had merit.
However, until Mr. Chan reappears I cannot truthfully say that I have had the chance to discuss his case thoroughly. I deeply appreciate your interest, but in view of my own investigations, I must be satisfied that Chan is prepared to accept responsibility. In the meantime, I shall be pleased to convey your views to the minister.
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Jung, M.P.,
Vancouver Centre.
On the basis of what I said in that letter Chan instituted the libel action against me. It should be remembered that in the early part of November, 1959 Chan disappeared prior to the day on which he was to be deported. Subsequent to his disappearance press reports stated that his wife had no idea where he was; that she had been dismissed from her job; that she was without financial support, and that she was relying on friends. In view of these press reports and the information which I had received from the department I felt that my letter expressed my opinions in a firm but courteous way. I could easily have avoided all this unpleasantness by simply not answering Miss Toppin's letter, but as a member of parliament I felt I had a duty to reply to her inquiry; and when I learned through the press that legal action was being taken against me I felt so strongly about this case that even before departing for Vancouver I telephoned my solicitors there instructing them to accept service of the writ so this case could be heard at the earliest possible time. I felt that an important principle was involved, namely the right of a member of parliament to express his views. I hope I have succeeded in dispelling any suggestion that I was deliberately going out of my way to hurt Chan. I did not deliberately write an unsolicited letter to someone I did not even know regarding Chan. Chan had been ordered deported and had gone into hiding long before I received the letter, and I had nothing whatsoever to do with the order for his deportation.
Having established that I am not afraid to speak out against one of my own race when in my opinion such words are necessary, I think I am in a better position to make an appeal on behalf of those naturalized Chinese who are still separated from their families. Hon. members will recall that in 1957, when I spoke on Chinese immigration, my theme was the reunification of the family. That theme remains unchanged. I urge that Chinese dependants regardless of age be allowed to join their relatives in Canada. Bearing in mind Chinese customs and traditions in the family, the class of dependants should be sufficiently broad to cover not only nephews and nieces but also grandchildren where the
4722	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration parents of the grandchildren are dead and the only relatives are in Canada.
I believe we have a moral obligation to those early Chinese immigrants who sacrificed so much and received so little to become reunited with their families. Let us remember that those early immigrants had to pay a head tax ranging from $50 to $500 in order to come to Canada, and then they were not allowed to bring their wives or families until after 1948, when the citizenship act was amended so that these old-timers could be naturalized. For over half a century many of these early Chinese settlers were denied a normal family life, and it is a source of wonder to me that in spite of these handicaps they were able to build up a reputation as law-abiding and hard-working people.
The Chinese population in Canada amounts to approximately 50,000 out of a total of 17,500,000. When this country can bring in some 37,000 Hungarian refugees in two years, as compared with the 50,000 Chinese in Canada, it can easily be seen that if all the families were united with their dependants the total of Chinese in Canada would still be small. I realize that the working out of some of the details would present problems, but I suggest that the principle of reunited families is a sound and humane principle.
Concurrent with the reunification of Chinese families there should be a quota system set up for those who have special skills and who do not have relatives in Canada. I suggest a quota system because in my view once families had been reunited the number of * Chinese wanting to come to Canada would taper off. It is highly unlikely that an unskilled Chinese person without a family here would be in a position to come to this country, because without relatives to sponsor and care for him he would have neither the means nor the desire to come to a strange land. However, skilled persons such as doctors, nurses and technicians are in a different position. Even without relatives or sponsors these people would be able to look after themselves and would constitute a definite asset to the community.
Finally, I again urge all Canadians not to allow the current investigation into alleged Chinese immigration irregularities to distort or prejudice the status of the Chinese communities in Canada. Much of the irregularity in Chinese immigration has sprung from the desire to rejoin loved ones. I know this government appreciates this fact, and for that reason the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has stated that the innocent will not suffer. That being so, I can only hope


that those who wish to do so will take the opportunity of regularizing their entry as soon as possible.	.


Mr. Regier:: I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question. I note that the hon. member has volunteered his offices to assist those Chinese who would like to regularize their entry into Canada. Did the hon. member mean his office as a member of parliament or his legal office as a barrister and solicitor?


Douglas Jung: I say categorically as a member of parliament.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Possibly in the short time which remains before the luncheon recess I might make a few remarks with reference to some of the things which have been said so far.
I should like to assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the irregularities which are the cause of the present investigation are not those of relationship or age. They are concerned purely with identity, and I can assure all members of this house that there is no intention to prosecute those people who are, let us say, the victims of these transactions. The intention is rather to curb the activities of the racketeers. I should "like to go one step further and say that this investigation was commenced largely because of complaints which came to me from the Chinese themselves that they were being victimized. I do not think that in my capacity as a member of the government I could overlook a plea such as was made to me not just by one person but by several people; and, I might say, in several cases their case was substantiated by documents. Evidence that some skulduggery existed was quite sufficient for me to start an investigation.
No official figure of the number involved has been given by my department, and I do not believe one has been given in the Department of Justice. Speculation has, of course, been rife, and some of the figures which have been quoted in the press arose, I think, as much from the speculation of persons outside Canada as of those living in this country. We have no idea how many people may be involved in this racket, none at all. We have no idea how many people may have come into Canada in this way. Consequently I can neither confirm nor deny anything which has been said, and I think that has been the position taken by the Department of Justice also. However, I know the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate appreciates, as a result of his own experience, that if you say you cannot deny a thing it is often taken as corroboration of a conjecture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady is not suggesting that the Globe and Mail was wrong in publishing the confirmation by the commissioner of the figure of 11,000? That is where the trouble came from. I have already read that extract from the Globe and Mail and unfortunately I have now sent it to Hansard. The commissioner said he would not say it was wrong. That is where the trouble arose.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is what I have been saying. Unfortunately we are in no position to deny the figure, because we do not know; neither are we in a position to confirm it.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre asked me for some information, and I procured a copy of the letter which I wrote in reply to Mr. Lee. I think possibly if I read it it may clarify some of the points which have been raised. It reads as follows:
Mr. W. A. Lee,
Secretary,
The Chinese Benevolent Association,
(National Headquarters).
108 Pender Street East,
Vancouver 4, B.C.
Dear Mr. Lee,
I thank you for your letter of June 3, enclosing copies of resolutions passed by delegates from all Chinese societies and organizations assembled at a mass meeting held in Vancouver on June 1 of this year. I assume that you have forwarded copies of these same resolutions to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, and that he will be replying to you with respect to the resolution which has been directed to him.
So far as the resolution directed to me is concerned, X should like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the statement that the Chinese people of Canada have every reason to be proud of the contribution that they have made and are continuing to make to the enrichment of our community and national life through their hard work, their self-reliance and their generous participation in worth-while community enterprises. X am confident that, if you will examine fairly and objectively the record of what I have said in parliament and elsewhere since I became minister of this department, you will be able to confirm for yourself the statement that I have at no time uttered a single word which could be taken as a reflection on the character or the integrity of our Chinese Canadians, or of persons of Chinese racial origin who have migrated to Canada.
Your resolution refers to the difficulties presented by the immigration regulations, as they apply to Chinese citizens. Without minimizing these in any way, I would merely wish to point out that the record shows a larger number of persons of Chinese origin were permitted entry to Canada as immigrants in the two-year period 1958-1959 than in any comparable period in the last forty years.
In the final paragraph of your resolution, you ask me to clarify the position of my department with respect to the current problem, which has received extensive publicity in the press and which affects the position of substantial numbers of Chinese residents of Canada, who are now known to have entered this country under illegal arrangements.
I should like to repeat to you what I have already said on a number of occasions, namely that the
79951-0-298
9, 1960	4723
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
government has no intention whatever to persecute or treat unfairly any of the individuals who find themselves in this position. I feel sure that many of the Chinese themselves are most anxious to regularize their status in Canada and to relieve themselves once and for all from the feeling of insecurity which they must feel, knowing, as they do, that they have entered Canada through illegal means and are constantly subject to the danger of exposure.
We are just as anxious as the Chinese themselves, who are caught in this position, to regularize their status under the laws of Canada. You can rest assured that any of the individuals concerned who decide to come forward and give to the officers of my department a true account of their identity, and of the circumstances under which they entered Canada, will be given the utmost consideration and every possible help in regularizing their status in this country.
I should make a distinction here between those who have been active in the organization and operation of the illegal arrangements, and those who may themselves have entered Canada illegally but have not been active in promoting the illegal entry of others. The former group will, of course, have to accept the full responsibility for what they have done in working actively to contravene our Canadian laws. The latter group, if they will come forward, will be given every assistance in regularizing their status in Canada, and can be assured of fair and considerate treatment at the hands of the officers of my department.
Yours sincerely,
Ellen L. Fairclough, Minister.
I think that will answer some of the questions that have been asked, and it is pretty much an expansion of what I said in the house in reply to questions that were put to me. I might say that I think it is very kind of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to offer to assist these people. I am sure there will be those who would go to him because of his racial origin who otherwise might feel diffident about going directly to an immigration officer. I can assure him that my department will co-operate with him in this matter. I am sure he will be able to smooth the road for those people who feel they would rather speak to him than to the department so that their cases may be dealt with expeditiously.
I might add that even prior to the investigation some persons had come forward and asked to have their status regularized. We have not had a great number but there have been some, and they have been given every consideration. Where a person is in this country under an assumed identity he automatically bars his own true relatives from entering under the facilities that are open to them because of their relationship. For this reason I think some of these people are anxious to regularize their position. Particularly if they have left children in other countries they would like to be able to apply for them now and bring them forward as their
4724	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration own true children, but of course they cannot do that if they are here under an identity other than their own.
For that reason, among others, may I say that any of those who care to come forward can be assured that we will do everything in our power to have their status in Canada regularized and their true identity established. I am sure they will have much easier minds and, incidentally, in cases where they are still under some financial obligation to the racketeer they will successfully get him off their backs. I think there are many advantages to an application for clarification of their status.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of observations I should like to make about what the hon. lady has just said. In the first place, lest there be any misinterpretation, I want to say again what I said before, that I think the department was thoroughly justified in embarking upon an investigation. I have no doubt that an investigation was necessary. As a matter of fact I have Hansard here for August 8, 1956. A question had been raised about this whole matter by the then member for Nanaimo, Mr. Cameron. I do not want to put a lot of unnecessary words on Hansard so I will only read what is absolutely pertinent. As found on page 7208 I said:
One might ask why we bother to take these pains.
To try to establish people's identity and so on.
The hon. member for Nanaimo thinks security screening is totally unnecessary hut I do not. The fact is there are no vital statistics in China that we can rely on. We do know there is a great deal of fraud practised in some of these cases and the hon. member for Vancouver East-
Still the member.
-himself said yesterday that, in some of these cases, these people were simply using Canada as an avenue to the United States and although I cannot cite a single case I am afraid that has sometimes been true.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Others do that, too.
I suppose that is sometimes true. I went on to say:
Others do it too; that is quite right. We try to stop it in every case but it is extremely difficult to stop it in these cases because we do not have access to the kind of records that are available to us in practically every other country from which we receive immigrants.
I want to say again-


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being one
o'clock-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can finish in two sentences, Mr. Chairman. I want to say again that I think the department was quite right in conducting this investigation. I think


if the hon. lady would just go one step further than she has gone in this statement she would clear up most of her own difficulties and the difficulties of the Chinese community. If she would say categorically that in the case of Chinese relatives within the relationships that are permitted who have come to Canada there need be no fear whatever of deportation or other penalties, I think she would get along a lot further.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I could go as far as that, unless there is some criminal activity, and if it is a bona fide case of relationship.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I mean is a statement that just because he was married or gave the wrong age he does not need to worry. That is what they want to be told by the minister, not by me.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have already said that, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I listened carefully as the hon. lady read the letter-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not mean right now, but I have said that and we have regularized a great many of these cases in the past. We have no intention whatever of sending people out of the country simply because they happen to be a different age from what they stated or because of their marital status. If the hon. member will peruse the order in council and the figures he will find that a great many of these people have come in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if I could say this the hon. lady might consider, when we resume, putting a two-sentence statement along the lines she has just given on Hansard so it will be right there. I think it would assist the committee and everybody else.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think that is a good suggestion; let us have it exact and definitive.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I have taken the advice of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and have prepared a short statement which I think will probably make the position completely clear. Accordingly, I should like to state that it is not the intention in connection with the current investigation to prosecute or deport from the country any Chinese presently in Canada who have not themselves engaged in assisting other Chinese, apart from their own relatives, to enter Canada illegally.

In answer to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, I may say that this applies to Chinese who have themselves entered Canada illegally on the basis of having given incorrect information as to their true identity, age, marital status, relatives and similar facts relating to their family status.
Having said that I should, of course, add that these people can only be helped to establish the true facts on which to regularize their status in Canada if they come forward on their own initiative and give the department correct information about themselves. If this is not done, then the individuals concerned will always be left in a state of uncertainty and insecurity, because nothing I can say as minister can give them the complete assurance they require and need unless and until they come forward and actually establish themselves, on the basis of the correct facts, as properly landed immigrants in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think the hon. lady has been very wise in making this statement.


Hubert Badanai: I have a few observations to make, and I hope to be able to advance some suggestions which may receive the consideration of the minister.
Scarcely a month has gone by since citizenship week was observed in most communities across Canada. City councils, chambers of commerce, school authorities and other voluntary organizations such as the I.O.D.E. sponsor such observances. It is one of those occasions when Canadians are or should be reminded of their privileges, their duties and their rights. The principal privilege is the right to vote at an election of representatives to public bodies, such as municipal councils, provincial and federal parliaments. In essence it is the Canadian concept of democracy.
At one of the lakehead secondary schools during the ceremonies marking citizenship week, a letter from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was read to the assembly from which I wish to quote a couple of paragraphs. The minister said in her letter as follows:
Our country has been built up by men and women of many races and creeds. As we study the history of Canada we learn of the contributions which these people have made, how they tilled the land, established industries and became good citizens and neighbours.
The minister went on to say that many different nationalities were represented in the schools and that she was especially pleased to learn of the sincere comradeship that existed among students. Then she concluded with these words:
That is good citizenship and a fine introduction to the adult world in which these students will soon be taking their places.
79951-0-298J
9, 1960	4725
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
No one here will find disagreement with those sentiments so well expressed by the minister. However, in our citizenship act there are some features which should receive the attention of the government, one of which is the problem of elderly immigrants unable to qualify for Canadian citizenship because they cannot speak English well enough.
As everyone knows, from time to time there appear before the courts for examination applicants for Canadian citizenship who, because of advanced age or because, since their arrival in Canada, they have lived in remote areas often lacking the facilities which are available in urban communities, have been unable to master an adequate knowledge of English and therefore cannot meet the requirements of the act, so the presiding judge simply turns them down. It is rather regrettable that during this session no change in the citizenship act is being considered which would recognize the need for a modification of the regulations governing the examination of prospective citizens who have lived in Canada for, say, ten years.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that a person who has resided in Canada for a period of 20 years is not required by the act to possess an adequate knowledge of the English or French language. I presume that years ago parliament recognized the difficulty of certain immigrants in being unable to learn the language, and for that reason the language requirement was not applied. I am sure the minister appreciates the predicament of a considerable number of elderly immigrants who are today prevented from obtaining citizenship because of this aspect of the law.
I have in mind several cases in my own constituency. As an illustration I wish to point to the specific example of a 79-year old lady who came to Canada from one of the Scandinavian countries quite a few years ago. She is living with a son and daughter-in-law who are both in possession of citizenship certificates. Last year this lady made an application for citizenship but because of her inability to answer the questions directed to her by the presiding judge she was turned down. She appealed to me in the hope that I would be able to help to obtain for her a certificate of citizenship, because she was anxious to visit some relatives in the United States and without it she would not be allowed to proceed across the border.
Not knowing what to do about it, but wishing to indicate my willingness to assist the poor soul, I decided to write a letter to the judge pointing out that this lady was really anxious and worried that unless she got her citizenship papers she would never have a chance to see some of her relatives.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I suggested that perhaps he could give her consideration on compassionate grounds. In his reply the learned judge recognized the problem and also expressed his regrets, but said unfortunately the act did not provide him with an alternative. In another communication the judge writes me as follows, and I wish to quote from his letter if I may Mr. Chairman.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have been listening to the hon. member, but I must warn him that in accordance with the arrangement made this morning we were to discuss the Immigration Act and come back later to the problem of citizenship. However, if the committee has no objection to letting the hon. member discuss this matter now I would not raise objection, except to say that if I do not give him this warning I may have difficulties later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think your ruling is, in principle, quite right, Mr. Chairman; but the hon. gentleman is half way through his speech and I am sure the minister would not object, any more than anyone else would, to his finishing, particularly as he is talking about immigrants who at the present time seem to have trouble in becoming citizens.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hear no objection from the minister and I thank her very much for allowing me to proceed. It seems to me that this is such an important subject that I cannot let this occasion go by without malting reference to it, because it applies to quite a number of people and I am sure many hon. members in the house have the same problem in their constituencies.
I quote from the letter of the learned judge as follows:
There are still a great number of these people in this district in this category and possibly not as deficient in knowledge of English as this lady. This elderly lady could not speak, understand or read English and so far as she is concerned it is impossible for her to comply with the regulations.
In front of me are quite a few in the same category with varying knowledge of English. Generally speaking they understand English to some extent and are able to speak in English sufficient to be understood. A great number of these have children born in Canada who have married and the children also have children bom in Canada. Their length of residence runs all the way from 28 or 30 years to 52 years. It is no use talking about them having any adequate knowledge of the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. They know very little of the country except the immediate locality in which they live, they know nothing about elections, they do not understand about voting, and so on.
I do not know whether it is possible but I have had a feeling for some time that on purely compassionate grounds possibly something might be worked out so that these rather elderly people can become Canadian citizens.
fMr. Badanai.]
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that early consideration should be given to this aspect of the citizenship act and to such amendments as would take care of such situations referred to by the judge. I express the hope that the minister will indicate if and when we may anticipate changes in the citizenship act and also a thorough overhauling of the immigration policy of the government.
Our lack of a vigorous immigration policy in an underpopulated country such as Canada is a distinct deterrent to the development of the nation. Last year the total number of immigrants admitted to Canada was a little over 100,000. Last Monday I had the pleasure of listening to a member of the Australian trade commission who was addressing the Ottawa Rotary club. He pointed out that a Labour government which years ago opposed wholesale immigration is now following a vigorous plan of immigration which has given that country a degree of prosperity never enjoyed before. Contrary to the idea that immigration adds to unemployment, a belief unfortunately shared by quite a number of people in our own country, the number of unemployed persons in Australia is less than 2i per cent of the labour force.
They have adopted a slogan, Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, and that slogan is "More people or perish". While I am not suggesting for one moment the adoption of this particular slogan, if I were asked to coin a slogan to meet the situation it would be "Population or a retarded development of Canada", and nothing short of that.
I also wish to remind the minister of what she said a couple of months ago to the Canadian ethnic press club in Toronto, to the effect that a "revision of Canada's immigration laws had become imperative", and that action along these lines would soon be taken. Now, Mr. Chairman, presumably the action to which she was referring was the removal of racial discrimination, which is still part and parcel of the Immigration Act. Two months ago it was going to be soon. What I would like to know is, how soon is soon?


An hon. Member:: Twenty years under a Liberal administration.


Hubert Badanai: A reform of the act is not only desirable but necessary if we are to take advantage now of the opportunity to build a strong and healthy economy by adding consuming power to use the products of our primary producers and of our manufacturers.
I express the hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will take these few and simple suggestions to heart. As a matter of fact I believe I am expressing what may be in the

minister's heart. She must feel the same way about it as I am sure many hon. members of this house do, notwithstanding the interjection I heard a moment ago from the far end of the house, and I trust that some action will soon be taken in this particular and most important department of our government.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Chairman, I wish only a few minutes of the committee's time on these estimates, but first I think it would be unfair if I did not offer a word of praise for the minister who I believe is doing a tremendous job in her department. However, there are certain anomalies in the Immigration Act, and in this connection I would like to put a few observations on record this afternoon.
First, it may be advisable to draw a distinction between immigration from the free countries of the world and that from the countries behind the iron curtain. Whereas immigration from the free countries is almost exclusively with economic betterment in view-and this applies to sponsored relatives to a degree-immigration from behind the iron curtain countries as well as from China and Japan is governed substantially by sentimental reasons and the desire of relatives in free, democratic Canada to come to the assistance of their kin living behind the iron curtain. The east Europeans also regard first cousins as close relatives, and often refer to them as brothers and sisters and not as cousins.
I suggest, sir, that it is therefore advisable to broaden somewhat the regulations governing the admission of relatives from behind the iron curtain and China and Japan. It would create, I am sure, a feeling of gratitude on the part of many ethnic groups in Canada. This step would be regarded as a humane gesture on the part of the Canadian government, and I do not believe it would greatly influence the over-all immigration quotas, as the number of persons permitted to leave the countries from behind the iron curtain would still be very small, due mainly to stringent restrictions placed on those people in those countries who wish to emigrate to Canada.
I would like to suggest a few reasonable changes in the Immigration Act; first, to include first cousins in the category of close relatives; second, to extend admission permits to the nephews and nieces of Canadian citizens even if they are not full orphans, and to raise the age limit to 21 years from 18 as is now stipulated in the regulations; third, to raise the age limit of the unmarried children of brothers and sisters emigrating to Canada from 18 to 21 years of age, thus
9, 1960	4727
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration diminishing the separation risk to families; fourth, to recognize half-brothers and halfsisters as close relatives, putting them in the same category as full brothers and sisters. This would also serve to eliminate the appearance of discrimination. Fifth, to permit entry to fiances and fiancees, thus eliminating discrimination. This may only have theoretical value, as applications for admission of fiances may not come forward at all.
The number of persons thus permitted to enter Canada would be small in comparison to general immigration figures. For instance, during the first four months of 1960 only 15 persons were admitted from Czechoslovakia, 8 from Estonia, 3 from Latvia, 1 from Lithuania, none from Romania, none from Bulgaria and 14 from the whole of the U.S.S.R. The largest contingent came from Poland, but even this figure did not reach 1,000 persons, the total being 747.
If we compare these figures with immigration figures for the same period of time from other European countries, we shall see the difference. During the first four months of 1960 there arrived in Canada, 2,760 persons from Germany, 6,424 from Italy, 5,722 from the United Kingdom, 1,483 from Greece, etc. Those persons who apply for the admission of relatives from behind the iron curtain are in most cases old established immigrants.
Immigration from these countries not including the displaced persons, stopped almost completely in 1939. In ever so many cases the immigrants of that day are without close relatives in Canada. Many of these now have ample means to guarantee support. I suggest, sir, that if these sponsors can satisfy the Canadian authorities in this regard, and if the persons who apply for admission comply with governing immigration regulations, there should be provision made to allow these people to enter Canada.
It is a generally known fact that many who wish to join their families in Canada and apply from Poland are of non-Polish origin. For security reasons, afraid of being sent to various Soviet republics by the Communist authorities, they pose as Poles but they include thousands of Ukrainians, Jews, Lithuanians, Byelorussians and others who could be included in the immigration from Poland. This last mentioned fact can be confirmed by the respective ethnic organizations in Canada.
I urge the minister to give serious consideration to these recommendations so as to correct the anomalies in the present act and assist in easing the situation.


Mr. Maloney:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words I should like to add to the discussion that has taken place on the estimates of the
4728	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I listened with much interest to the remarks that were made by my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and also to the remarks that were made by the first spokesman for the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Vancouver East.
I have always been at a loss to comprehend what really was in the mind of the late Mackenzie King when he laid down the basic character principle to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred with a large measure of support and approval. Whether it be a fair interpretation of the late hon. gentleman's words, the principle is none the less construed as meaning that the immigration policy of this country should be such as to control the immigration to Canada in a way that would overt the possibility of too large a proportion of the population belonging to races that are neither Anglo-Saxon nor French.
It seems to me that if that is a true construction of what is meant by the basic character rule it ignores a very important fact. That fact is that today in Canada about 28 per cent of our population is neither Anglo-Saxon nor French. If the basic character principle is as I have attempted to enunciate it, it strikes me that regard must be had to that very large percentage of the population that falls into racial groups which, as I say, are neither Anglo-Saxon nor French.
If the basic character principle of the late Mr. King is a principle of strict application, surely as long as we have large numbers of individuals who are desirous of coming to Canada from the countries of central and eastern Europe we should not shut the doors to desirable persons from those countries while the English, the Irish and the Scotch wait to make up their minds.
I listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, who enunciated what I suppose can be fairly described as a policy of restricted immigration. That appears to be good C.C.F. philosophy. It also appears to be good Canadian Labour Congress philosophy. I suppose that in view of the new but as yet unnamed partnership between the C.C.F. party and the Canadian Labour Congress it is not surprising that the hon. member should give voice to sentiments such as those he expressed during the course of his remarks today. An immigration policy as restricted as would be the policy advocated by the hon. member and by the congress would, in my opinion, as I have stated on previous occasions in this house, be an unrealistic policy and one lacking in farsightedness.


The hon. member for Vancouver East obviously belongs to that group of individuals who suppose that immigration aggravates conditions of unemployment. The hon. member for Fort William discussed that topic a few minutes ago, and both he and I spoke on the same subject on the occasion of the debate on the address earlier this session. As the hon. member and I then pointed out, the opposite is in fact true. I think if one examines the percentage of Canadians who are unemployed in the various provinces, one will find that unfortunately those provinces which have attracted the smallest number of immigrants suffer today from the largest percentage of unemployed. On the other hand, if one examines the figures for Ontario one finds that whereas since the last war Ontario has absorbed 50 per cent of the immigrants who have come to Canada, this province has the lowest percentage of unemployed.
I was particularly sorry to hear the hon. member for Vancouver East give voice to what I call the old nazi bogey. I think I know the hon. member well enough to know that he did not intend to smear the German immigrant population of Canada, but the clear impression which would emerge from his remarks-an impression which I hope and feel sure he did not intend-is that the majority of the German immigrants to Canada are either nazis, former nazis, or nazi sympathizers. It is my experience, and I am sure it is the experience of all my colleagues who represent constituencies part of whose population consists of German immigrants, that nothing could be further from the truth. In a long association with many immigrants who have come to Canada from Germany I have found them to entertain the same feelings of revulsion that are entertained by any of us when we contemplate the terrors and the horrors of the Hitler regime.
The hon. member is not alone in the impression he created. On the same theme I have in mind the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has been brought to my attention, in connection with the point I am now making, that the C.B.C. has seen fit in the last year or less to resurrect for its late night movies some of the old nazi horror pictures. This accomplishes nothing in the field of entertainment for fellow Canadians, but it has served to keep in mind the kind of prejudice that ought to be done away with. We have taken steps to invite people from Germany to come to this country to make it their home. Many people have come in response to that invitation and it is unfair, I would think, for a government owned institution such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in Canada. In that respect I think a tribute also should be paid to the editors and publishers of the foreign language newspapers of Canada, which are now published in such large numbers and have such a wide circulation among this ever-growing and increasingly important part of our population.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are some of the sentiments that I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to express.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. gentleman will permit me to say a word. I did not like to interrupt the hon. member for Parkdale but I do have to take some exception to something he said, though I am sure he said it quite innocently. He suggested that in my speech this morning I had said something about the basic character of the population referred to in Mr. Mackenzie King's statement. I said nothing about it at all. I did not even mention that particular aspect at all. I was referring to another matter entirely, the control by Canada of its own immigration policy.
I should not like it to be thought that the hon. member's interpretation of Mr. Mackenzie King's mind was one with which I agree. I always understood that what was meant was that, having developed a certain kind of Canadian outlook, we wanted to add to our population people who would contribute to that in much the way, with which I have no quarrel, that the hon. member has suggested is being done; and I would say that the best interpretation of what Mr. Mackenzie King meant is the immigration policy that was followed by the Liberal government between 1947 and 1957. But there is an authoritative interpretation to which I might direct the hon. member's attention. It was given in the house by the hon. member for Eglinton when he was sitting on this side of the house. As this is the latest authoritative interpretation of Mr. Mackenzie King's mind, and as it comes from one of the leaders of the hon. member's party, I thought he might like to be reminded of it. It is to be found on page 1196 of Hansard for February 15, 1955, at which time the hon. member for Eglinton said:
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-
This is the hon. member for Eglinton, the present Minister of Finance, speaking.
-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.


That is the hon. member for Eglinton, now the Minister of Finance.
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.
I think that can be regarded as the official Conservative canon on this subject, and I commend it to the hon. member for Parkdale.


Mr. Cresiohl:: Mr. Chairman, I was of course pleased to hear the minister repeat what I should like to term her credo for an immigration policy for Canada. This is not the first time she has spoken so forcefully and effectively about the necessity and desirability of increasing the population of Canada. She has made these speeches outside the house, in various parts of the country, and they have all been well received. Similar statements have been made by the Prime Minister urging a high rate of immigration. A former leader of the opposition, Hon. George Drew, at one time spoke in the house in terms of seeking 25 million immigrants for Canada. I go along with that, as I think most Canadians do, as a desirable immigration policy for Canada.
However, I am sure the minister and the government will understand that when we say things which might sound as though we were not in complete agreement with the minister or her statements, those statements should be accepted as constructive criticism. I do not want to even term it as criticism. It is true that in all honesty and sincerity, people do not agree about methods, systems or philosophies.
I feel that there is much in the present Immigration Act that could be improved. I want to address myself to those things with a view to improving the act, in the hope that the minister's expressed wish in connection with immigration will be realized. She has said she takes the long range view, but I hope she is not wearing short range glasses. It is quite possible to have a long range view on immigration and yet, in all honesty, be a little short-sighted in implementing that long range view. These are some of the things I should like to touch upon.
I do not know whether anyone, including the minister of immigration, could today laydown for Canada a clear-cut and specific immigration policy. I consider her statement today as rather vacillating. She seemed to say yes, we want immigration, but we want immigrants of a certain kind and the act says we

want them mostly from certain places. This may be quite true, but is that a long range view? Let us see, for example, what happens. We look for immigrants, preferably from certain sections of the world because we believe they can more rapidly integrate into the Canadian way of life. Unfortunately those large waves of immigrants that we speak about are not available from these quarters.
I think the long range view, and I now address myself to the minister directly, can be helped by looking at what has happened in the past. You talk about bringing in large waves of immigrants, and you look over the applicants to judge their suitability for that long range immigration program. It is quite possible that those whom we look upon now as prospective immigrants from central Europe and other parts of the world may not be the most desirable for that program. I cannot say what the reason may be. The Immigration Act apparently does make some classification.
However, I feel that the long range view of the government and of the minister would best be served by looking at the second generation Canadians. I have sat here making a fast count, and I find there are members in this house who are not first generation Canadians. There are, either in this house or the other place, roughly between 12 and 15 hon. gentlemen who are immigrants into this country. This does not mean that they may not be first class Canadians. Let us look a little further; let -'us look at the next generation of Canadians, y I was not born in this country, and that is ^ true of other members in this house. This * does not mean to say that my children are not first class Canadians or that they will not continue to be. They have worn the king's uniform and have graduated from Canadian universities.
This is what I call a long range view. Second, third and fourth generation Canadians are all Canadians. You cannot now tell from what part of Europe they came or from what country they came, whether they came from Anglo-Saxon countries or Latin countries. Today they are Canadians, and in my judgment that is the long range view which the minister should take in looking upon people who today come knocking upon our doors saying they want to come in. We should not say they are not qualified. If there is a possibility of admitting people, let us admit them. If they are qualified, if they appear intelligent, if they are in good health, if they have good records, let us accept them.
I do not believe anyone else needs to speak about large waves of immigrants. The government is doing that, the minister is
9, 1960	4731
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration doing that, the Prime Minister is doing it and the Minister of Finance is doing it; that is an accepted fact. Unfortunately I feel that legislatively and even verbally we say we want large waves of immigrants but are we really doing the things that will get them? I feel that we are not. The hon. member for Vancouver East spoke this morning about the advertisements for tradesmen to come to Canada. We have to look at the position. Either we want immigrants or we do not want them. Let us not say we want them and then make it extremely difficult for them to come. These statements may sound very well and be very satisfying and they may meet certain situations such as the one the hon. member for Parkdale referred to, keeping a certain balance. There is no question, however, but that if we look at the position today we will have a very difficult time setting up a policy. We should be looking at the future of Canada 50 years ahead, 100 years ahead or 200 years ahead; that is the kind of long range view to take, not what will happen this year or next year. We could become despondent if we were to judge the long range program by what has happened.
I believe that in 1957, if my records are correct, approximately 282,000 people came into this country. In 1958 the number dropped to 124,000. That is a staggering figure when we think in terms of large waves of immigrants about which the minister speaks. You do not increase the population of Canada when the number of immigrants is cut in half. What is the reason for this? Have we made it difficult for them to come or have we made it easy for them to come? Have we welcomed them or have we done everything possible to keep them out?
I feel, and I have felt over the years, that there has been a tendency to keep immigrants out of the country. When an immigration official examines a prospective immigrant he does not examine him from the point of view of whether he is a desirable immigrant; of what we can find in this man that will enable us to issue a visa. No; unfortunately the reverse attitude is taken. They say we must keep him out; and upon the slightest suspicion, without even investigation, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has pointed out, that is done. It is the safe thing to say no. It is always safest to say no.
I know our immigration officials abroad and in this country extend themselves as far as they can to give a favourable decision. They are very courteous, very thoughtful and very compassionate at times. However, unfortunately the regulations tie their hands. Often they cannot say so, but we have to read
4732	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration between the lines when they say no. There appears to have been a philosophy toward immigration to keep immigrants out of Canada unless they fall into a category that would maintain the balance. I do not know what ' balance. Perhaps some things are left unsaid, and sometimes that is the better way.
If we seek immigrants for Canada, I wonder whether the minister and her senior officials will take a new look. There has been some modification in the department and perhaps new officials will take a new look. I am hopeful that perhaps the officials and the minister will now take a new look at bringing immigrants into Canada. We want them. On that score I think all hon. members of the committee are fairly well agreed. The question of these tradesmen to which I referred previously leads me to one conclusion. Approximately 50 trades are listed. Every conceivable trade, employment or profession to which you can possibly refer is listed here. Canada is looking for all these immigrants or all these types of immigrants. If that is so, is it because we are looking for people as immigrants to populate our country or are we looking for tradesmen? For example, are we short of bricklayers, cooks, domestics, dry cleaning experts and so on down the list?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are short of good government.


Leon David Crestohl: My hon. friend says we are short of good government. That may come in time. I am fairly sure it will come in time.
The fact is that I do not think any hon. member in the chamber, regardless of his political allegiance, will say that we in this country are short of tradesmen of these kinds.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the hon. member would tell us what it is he is reading from.


Leon David Crestohl: I am reading from a photostatic copy of an advertisement which appeared in the Belfast Telegraph of December 6, 1959. If this is a program to attract immigrants to Canada, well and good. I hope it is. I am not critical of it. I rather regard it more as being an advertisement to attract people from that area to come to Canada. I do not want to say it is that certainly, because I do not know; but I doubt whether similar advertisements appeared in newspapers in other continental countries in Europe. I do not know. Perhaps the minister will enlighten me. However, I feel it was directed mostly to Belfast and other Anglo-Saxon countries, being a rather direct appeal for immigrants. I am willing to accept that explanation. It is most welcome. But if we * want immigrants, it would be interesting to know whether the minister can tell us how
[Mr. Crestohl.)

much money was spent for this advertisement and how many immigrants it actually produced.
We know that there are immigrants clamouring to come to Canada and that they are not readily admitted. I do not want to say that there are obstacles, but they have difficulties because of the existing regulations. Of course, I for one am appreciative-as is the rest of the country-of the thoughtfulness of the department and the minister in admitting a number of hard-core cases. That was certainly a compassionate and humanitarian thing for the government to do. It is in line with Canadian thinking. It is in line with Canada's showing the way in assisting humanity where such assistance is required.
Then also there are refugees. The government showed fine consideration for refugees who have come to Canada. There is a third class of immigrants who now wander over the face of the globe. They are called stateless persons. Somehow or other I do not think we have ever had a complete definition or understanding of what a stateless person is. At one point the minister was asked about stateless persons. If a stateless person is in Canada and must be deported, she was asked to what state such a stateless person could be deported. I think I asked the minister that question. The very term "stateless person" indicates that you cannot deport him to any state. The minister attempted to give some sort of answer to the effect that she would deport him to the last country in which he had been if that country would take him. It is, of course, an anomalous position and I hope the minister will, in some form, give a little bit lengthier explanation of what Canada will do with a stateless person who is about to be deported.
I should also like to say a word about the Canadian government immigration policy with respect to visitors to Canada. I think the procedure with respect to visitors lends itself to the severest form of criticism. Why should we deny people the right to visit Canada? Of course the minister explained that matter in her statement of 1958. She | said that these people come here as visitors and then decide to remain here and make application. What if they do? People come and visit Canada. They like Canada. They see Canada. They decide to try to remain in Canada. There is no crime in that course. There is no offence in it. I rather think it is a compliment to Canada when they come here to visit the country, see it, like it and then ask permission to remain here. But no; the department and the act or the regulations-I do not know which it is-make of that procedure an offence. What is said to these people is this: you came here and you

fooled us; you fooled our immigration inspectors whom you saw in Europe. You said you were coming as a tourist but you had no intention of coming as a tourist, you really had the intention of remaining in Canada; and because you fooled us, we cannot consider your application.
I say that is not a generous view to take. Technically speaking the department may be right but it is not a generous approach to take. I know of a number of cases of young men who have come to this country as tourists, one to visit a brother. They are university graduates. Then they decide to remain in Canada and they apply for permission to remain. Even though this man has a brother who is resident in Canada, the department says to him, "You cannot apply while you are in Canada", because of the minister's statement in 1958. The department says, "You leave the country; you go back where you came from and when you are there, apply there and we will process you there".
Again I say that, technically, that procedure may be correct. However, in its practical application, in the economy of the whole thing, it is basically wrong. You have the man here. Examine him. Find out whether he is a good immigrant. Find out whether he is in good health or whether he qualifies. If he does so, land him here. Why send him back thousands of miles to file his application elsewhere?
There may be reasons for a thing like that. I hope the minister will explain the reasons. It just does not make good sense. It is not good business and it is not good economics. Certainly in many instances these people are desirable immigrants and we, who seek many immigrants, lose them. That is one of the faults, among many others, upon which I should like to touch in referring to the Immigration Act in a few moments.
I should also like to say a word or two about some immigrants from the Middle East, from such places as Iraq, Lebanon and other Arab countries in which it is difficult for certain people to remain in safety. I know that the department extends itself as much as possible to show special compassionate consideration for all the dangers which surround the fives of these people and tries to help.
Unfortunately they are often handicapped, not so much by the act but by the immigration regulations. I appeal to the minister that when these cases come up she should look upon them as generously as I know she can and I ask her to encourage her officials to extend themselves as generously as possible, because it is a question of human fife. If these people are forced to return to these
9, 1960	4733
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration countries some of them will not go back because it means certain death. It is almost as bad as not wanting to go back to the countries behind the iron curtain.
I make a special appeal for these immigrants from Iraq. A number of cases I know of are now before the department. All concern very fine, intelligent, well educated people of substance who are in Canada now. They are here as tourists or students but they live under the constant fear of being asked to leave Canada. I make an appeal on their behalf. Perhaps they do not fall within the four corners of the act at the present time, but there are certainly grounds in the act which allow the minister a certain latitude to deal with these very special cases, and they deserve the department's and the government's most sympathetic attention.
I know of the case of a stateless person, for example, where I am told the department went to the embassy of the country where that person ran away from because of certain fears that person had and asked the embassy, will they take this person back? It becomes a very painful situation. It is even painful to talk about because these things are filled with tears right down the fine. I hope the department will stretch the immigration regulations as far as it possibly can to give these people the necessary relief.
I should like to deal with this question of visitors and to quote very briefly from a statement once made by the present Prime Minister when he was sitting in opposition. On January 26, 1957 he said:
Petty little legalities should not interfere with the admittance to this country of someone who is physically and mentally fit.
I rather admire that statement. It was a lofty statement for the Prime Minister to have made at that time.
Again, he said on September 20, 1954:
Good citizens should not have their way impeded by roadblocks and departmental red tape. We have lost many excellent immigrants.
I cite these quotations not because the department is not familiar with them or because the minister does not understand them but because I feel they should go on record if for no other reason than it is another nudge in the direction of doing away with minor legal technicalities and allowing these people to emigrate to Canada.
I should now like to point out to the minister a number of anomalies, and 1 am glad her officials are in the chamber. The hon. member for Edmonton East pointed out some anomalies contained in the act and the regulations and I would like to point out some which are really very painful. There are five subsections to section 20 of the act dealing with regulations applying to immigrants.
4734	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Under subsection (a) immigrants from some countries need nothing else to enter Canada except some means to maintain themselves until they find a job. That is the only requirement they need; to be in good health, of good morals and have a little money to keep body and soul together until they get a job. That is very admirable and to be commended. However, in another subsection we find that from other countries immigrants need nothing else except to come to a job which is already waiting for them or to establish themselves in business, in a trade or profession or in agriculture. Again, as in the previous case, the question of having close relatives in Canada does not enter into it. If a man can comply with these items he becomes admissible. I commend that section. It is a fine section. That does not make immigration into Canada difficult, but proper as it should be.
There is another subsection which lists certain countries and only the close relatives enunciated in the section are admissible. In this category there are no limits provided the immigrant is in good health and is a relative as defined. The question of occupa-1 tion does not enter into it. A potential immigrant may have means and a job, but if he does not have close relatives as defined he will not be admitted. To my way of thinking that is contradictory.
A further subsection refers to other countries and lists the same close relatives as in the previous subsection except that the parents of a Canadian citizen in this case must be over a certain age, 65 years in the case of the father and 60 years in the case of the mother. I have spoken about this before. I find it extremely difficult to understand the reasoning behind this subsection. I do not see how anyone in good sense can say that is a desirable regulation. If the father is 64 years of age he cannot be admitted; he must be 65 or over. Surely hon. members will not deny that a father of age 64 is just as beloved to his child as is a father of 65 or 66. Why should one not be allowed to bring his father to this country even if he is only age 64? The same applies to a mother. If the mother is 59 years of age she is not admissible-I am speaking now of the mothers of Canadians-if she is 60 or 61 she is admissible. How can one possibly draw such a fine line? I wonder who the genius is that set down those fine lines of demarcation?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can answer that question, Mr. Chairman. It was the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Leon David Crestohl: I was just on the point of saying that. If that genius was a member of the former government I assure the hon. gentleman can accept that criticism in a lofty


sense. Is the minister now saying to me that that was a good regulation enacted by the former minister? If so, let the hon. lady get up and say so.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you might allow me to reply to the hon. member for Cartier and then he could proceed. As the hon. lady has said, I was responsible for the drafting of that particular regulation. I think perhaps the hon. member for Cartier would like to know why it was drafted that way. It was done that way because these categories apply to countries that are under communist domination and, I think, only to those countries. It was on the advice of the security officers that it was done that way. Since we could do no security clearance in those countries at all and there were no facilities of any kind for that it was the view of the advisers of the government, which in this case I accepted, that the risk of a man over 65 or a woman over 60 or of children ' of the ages specified was a risk that we could very reasonably take.
I may say I have no doubt that the hon. lady does just what I did when there was some case of great merit where the father was 64. We asked the governor in council to be generous in the matter. I admit at once that the hon. member was correct in saying that on the surface this looks completely silly. I simply wish that we lived in the kind of world where we did not have to have any kind of security screening at all because it is the most unpleasant and objectionable thing about immigration and, I think, about every other aspect of our lives in a world that considers itself civilized.


Charles Edward Rea: The procedure, of course, has been for the Chair to recognize an hon. member from the other side of the house. I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, I wish I had had the opportunity of rising a few moments ago when we had an hon. lady of this house occupying the Chair because I think it was an historic occasion to have an hon. lady chairman when an hon. lady minister's estimates were under review.
I wish it was my lot today to pay tribute to the minister for all the wonderful things that her department has done but I should like to restrict my comments at this time to one facet of the Immigration Act and that is the procedural part of the legislation.
Many statements have been made inside and outside of the chamber since 1957 to

the effect that the House of Commons in due course would be considering a new Immigration Act, an act which I believe hon. members will recognize as being one in which I have become extremely interested. To date we have had no opportunity and no assurances that we will shortly be considering this often-discussed new immigration bill. In that regard it is rather disappointing to me not to have had an opportunity to speak about it because during the election campaigns I stated to my constituents that I would fight vigorously for a new immigration bill.
I do not propose to speak at length today because I have already spoken on this subject on previous occasions here in the House of Commons and certainly on many occasions outside the house. My chief suggestion to the minister is that at the earliest possible moment we be given an opportunity of considering a new immigration bill. I believe it is now too late in this session to provide such an opportunity but I hope mention of this will be included in the throne speech at the next session.
With the advent of the revised act of 1952 many hoped that the evils, uncertainty and the rigid ministerial control which for many years had plagued the field of immigration would be mitigated. Provision was made for an immigration appeal board. Certainly that was a step in the right direction. The sections of the old act were re-arranged, additional definitions were inserted and the result appeared to be a better example of legislation. Unfortunately little of substance was altered and the act together with its regulations remain in my opinion as one of the saddest statutes on the books today. As far as many of us are concerned-those of us who practise in this field and I presume many other hon. members do-frustration, bewilderment and confusion have become the common lot of those engaged in this departmental work. The administration of the act has been carried on in a general atmosphere , of secrecy, in the main, which has certainly in the city of Vancouver, and I suggest elsewhere, provoked sharp criticism from the bench and the bar and certainly from the press.
Since world war II, mainly as a result of the efforts made by the Canadian Bar Association, ministerial discretion in various departments of government has been drastically reduced. Perhaps the best example can be found in the administration of the Income Tax Act which points to a tendency to restore the administration of public departments of government to the field of law. Both the Income Tax Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act provide excellent machinery for
9, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the hearing of grievances and of appeals and with the improvements which are being made annually in those administrative procedures few can find anything to criticize in the administration of those two government departments.
The trend has been the same in the provincial field and numerous new statutes enacted in the past decade have been careful to provide adequate machinery for the hearing and appealing of applications, ministerial orders and the like. The Immigration Act, however, remains as an outstanding exception to this general tendency.
Since world war II Canada has received approximately two million immigrants. Certainly credit is due to the previous administration for bringing so many people to this country. They have made excellent residents and citizens of this nation. It is the hope particularly in my area that the present government will pursue just as vigorous an immigration policy. If my memory serves me correctly, immigrants to Canada since the last war have brought $1J billion to this country in the way of assets. Certainly they have brought new ideas and modes of carrying on business and these contributions have been welcome.
The present Immigration Act serves the masses who come to Canada. I have no complaints about that aspect of the act but I suggest it does not serve the increasing numbers of those who run into difficulties under the act. It has been the immigrants with problems that have focussed our attention on the inadequacies of the act. I suggest it is in this field of procedural problems that we have attracted the sharpest criticism from judges and the press. Many have become aware of the shortcomings of the act and I suggest there is now a widespread call, in fact a demand, that the act be completely changed.
Certainly any student of immigration law has strong feelings about the practices and procedures of the department. It is known that I have written many letters on the subject and have had the honour to serve on a committee of the Canadian Bar Association dealing in particular with immigration procedures. Since coming to Ottawa as a member I have strongly advocated changes in the legislation because, as I have indicated to the minister and to you, Mr. Chairman, we said in my riding that we would fight for a new immigration act. Again I say how disappointing it is to me that we have not yet had a bill brought before us.
At this time I should like to commend the staff of the immigration department for the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration job they have tried to do under a most difficult and unworkable act. They have certainly been loyal and trustworthy but I can readily see that no minister or civil servant could really do the job that is required under the present act.
I would very much like to be able to commend the provisions of the act because I believe that all concerned know it is just not my nature to publicly criticize anyone personally and indeed I find it difficult to criticize publicly even the procedural aspects of the department. In 1957 the Vancouver Sun said in an editorial:
Surely Ottawa is capable of devising a system that looks fair and humane while still protecting Canada against inflow of subversives and undesirables.
Public policy demands it, aside from the urgency of protecting Canada's reputation as a country which respects human rights ...
When an immigrant isn't satisfied with rejection by a special inquiry officer, he should have access to a fair appeal procedure.
The article went on:
To get to the courts, a would-be immigrant must claim that immigration department proceedings were so unfairly or so badly conducted as to violate natural justice. This is a shocking accusation to have made-and upheld by the courts- against the Canadian government several times a year.
That is the objective toward which I am trying to work today. We should try to bring about a system that will not attract such sharp criticism. Recently one of the learned judges of the supreme court of British Columbia said that those who had knowledge of the act were not working hard enough to bring about changes in it. He said at that time that he was adding his voice, as a voice in the wilderness, in an effort to bring about changes.
We are disturbed at the present time about the Chinese problem in many parts of Canada, but before we become too critical of that minority group, should we not consider the system under which they enter this country? Hon. members may look as long as they please, but they will find no rules, no regulations, no section of the act, setting out the procedures under which these people enter. There is a marked shortage of regulations guiding their admission, and I suggest that those Canadians who are applying for dependants are entitled to better treatment in this respect. Surely we could devise a system under which they could enter, clearly knowing what was being done. Some rules should be established with respect to the hearing overseas, and others to govern appeals in cases in which applications are rejected.
All too frequently one hears the argument that these matters are not very serious, that

only a small minority group is affected. The applicants are, nevertheless, Canadian citizens and the words used by Mr. Justice Duff, as he was then, in a well-known case known as Samejima versus The King which is to be found in the library referring to a deportation order 23 years ago, still apply as ever. He said:
I gravely fear that too often the fact that these enactments are, in practice, most frequently brought to bear upon orientals of a certain class, has led to the generation of an atmosphere which has obscured their true effect. They are, it is needless to say, equally applicable to Scotsmen. I admit I am horrified at the thought that the personal liberty of a British subject should be exposed to the hugger mugger which, under the name of legal proceedings, is exemplified by some of the records that have incidentally been brought to our attention.
I agree that the oriental situation is in many ways the most serious immigration question we face at the present time. Persons claiming Canadian citizenship over the years have been barred from Canada. Intending immigrants and relatives of Canadian citizens have been rejected on a visual estimate of age corroborated by a pseudo-scientific radiological procedure. I agree that a decision is difficult in cases of this kind, but I say that if we grant a hearing overseas it should be a fair hearing. I suggest that at present it is not a fair one and that we should correct the situation and bring about at an early date a procedure whereby a copy of the transcript relating to the hearing overseas is made available to the Canadian applicant. Certainly, over the years, persons have been granted admission by order in council, but at a later time a visa has been refused. There has been a lack of any form of hearing. There has been a refusal to allow counsel to be present at these overseas hearings, a position which has attracted sharp criticism.
Another editorial which apeared in the Vancouver Province had this to say:
An intending immigrant, once refused admission may butt his head against the stone walls of the department as long as he likes without learning the real reason he was denied admission.
It is with situations of this sort that I rise today to deal. It is my desire to persuade the minister and her officials, if I can, to devise some rules which will give these people a chance. This does not necessarily mean that we will have to amend the act, because many of these questions are procedural matters which could be corrected by order in council. Many problems are involved, and I know it is impossible to please everyone, but I say we should not hesitate to condemn a policy, carried out on a basis of secrecy, which refuses to give reasons for the actions it takes

and which does not provide a proper tribunal so that a full and fair hearing is given to the Canadian dependents.
In considering the new act I hope the minister will consider establishing a quota system for Canada so that Canada can receive from all countries, including those in the British Commonwealth, some immigrants from each country. A quota system would in the main be a new departure although we have a quota system in effect already respecting the East Indian community. A quota ' system could, to a large degree, follow the system used in the United States and it would result in many people who are not at present admissible becoming eligible for admission to Canada.
I should like, also, to see easier entry made possible for persons who are able to support themselves. There are many people who would like to live here almost indefinitely, without necessarily taking employment here. I am thinking, for example, of writers and artists. There may be other classes of people in this position, including elderly people who would like to reside here; people who have ample means and who, again, would like to settle here indefinitely. Under the regulations as they are at the moment hon. members will find that many industrialists, importers and exporters are barred from Canada unless they have a son, or a daughter or a wife in this country.
In making these suggestions I should like the minister to consider the following proposals. First, that the departmental regulations be codified and that departmental practices relating to the application or interpretation of the act be supplied to all persons interested. A statement of policy by the minister has in the past been relied upon as the basis of admission or rejection of applicants. In the past statements have been made in the house which formed the basis and the only basis upon which some dependents of Canadians could enter the country. I suggest that that is something we should overcome and that the regulations in that regard should be codified.
The second point is that certified copies of all applications and all exhibits and other material upon which decisions are based should be supplied at a reasonable cost where it is established that the document is not available to the applicant.
Third, the procedure in dealing with applications for admission and for other matters dealt with at immigration stations should follow a standard pattern. Those of us who have had experience with the department find that the same procedure is not followed
9, 1960	4737
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration at the various ports of entry. It is for that reason I am making that suggestion at this time.
Next, there should be an appeal to the courts on all matters of interpretation of law and on all other grounds recognized as proper grounds for appeal from administrative tribunals.
Next, I say that all statements made at any investigation, inquiry or examination-in making this suggestion I have in mind that we are dealing with dependants of Canadians, not necessarily immigrants from overseas who have no close relatives in Canada-relating to the applicant's status or that of his dependants should be under oath and be in writing or be reduced to writing and that the applicant should be given a copy of part or all of the transcript subject to the payment of a reasonable fee.
Next, I suggest that an immigration appeal board, as provided in the act, be established and that it hear not only appeals from deportation orders but also from the refusal of a visa, again where dependants of Canadians are involved. I suggest that the appeal board should have jurisdiction to determine questions of both law and fact, and that the right of the minister to decide which appeals shall and which shall not go to the board should be deleted. In other words, the suggestion here is that in each and every case these appeals should go to the board and that the minister should have no right to delegate these cases to herself in some instances.
The next suggestion is that written reasons should be furnished by the minister or by the board for the rejection of appeals. This would be most helpful to members of the house and to the many Canadians who are interested in immigration problems.
Next, I suggest the formulation of a policy of bail under section 18 which would confer discretion on a special inquiry officer. The present policy is dictated by the department and it does not allow security by the depositing of title deeds to real property and the like. I would particularly ask the minister to deal with this aspect of the problem when she is commenting later because many people arrive at the Vancouver port of entry after five o'clock at night and it is my understanding that there is no provision even for accepting a cash bond at that time and that on the following day a cash bond is specifically requested. The department cannot accept the security of title deeds and so on, which would be of help to those who wish to assist in arranging the bond. Surely an applicant should not be at any greater disadvantage
4738	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration than he would be if he were involved in a matter before a criminal court.
Next, Mr. Chairman, I suggest the restoration to the immigration officer in charge at a port of entry of jurisdiction to hear and determine applications under section 20 (2) of the regulations. In this regard, and I again mention this by way of constructive criticism, at the port of Vancouver, for example, we have long felt that this authority has been moved 3,000 miles to the west. When persons, particularly dependants of Canadians, now come to Vancouver they merely show a document when they get off the plane and they move in very quickly. It seems to me from reading the act that there is a duty upon the officer in charge to conduct an examination at that time. Under the present practice we have moved the port of entry, as I have suggested, many miles to the west with the result that all of these matters are handled overseas and the officer in charge has very little to do when the people arrive.
I know that problems will arise if this suggestion is followed. You may ask what we are going to do if people come over here and we have to turn them back. It may be that the solution to the problem would be to give them their medical examination overseas and then bring them in in lots of 10 by plane to Vancouver where the examination could be conducted. In the Vancouver area at least I suggest that this might be tried as an experiment. The applicant could meet the dependant, both could be put under oath and there could be a more formal hearing with the opportunity for an immediate appeal from any rejection. I say that there is great room for improvement and I think we can overcome many of the problems if we follow the suggestions I have made.
Lastly, I suggest that any person alleging Canadian citizenship should have the right, upon establishing a prima facie case, to be permitted to proceed to a port of entry, instead of being heard at a place abroad, for a hearing under section 20 of the act. Over the years there have been people who have said, "I am a Canadian" and the officer has said, "I do not think you are". Then the officer proceeds to hear the case at the overseas point. I suggest that we follow the United States system and that where a person says, "I am a Canadian"-in this day and age it is a very nice thing to be able to say- that person should be able to proceed to the port of entry. I am quite agreeable to obliging that person to remain in custody but certainly there would then be a hearing and also access to the courts afterward. I feel that is a much better system than the one we follow at present.


I also suggest that there should be an amendment to section 33 of the act which requires a deportation order to be executed as soon as practicable, to provide that the service of an application to a court attaching the order shall operate as a stay of proceedings. In the most recent celebrated case in Vancouver the deportation order has been confirmed by the court. Technically speaking, the immigration officer could immediately pick up that person and transport her out of the country. But I suggest that where a matter has been before the courts and there is a chance of appealing the department should not act further until the appeal period has expired or at least counsel should certainly be given a reasonable time in which to serve an order upon the department indicating an appeal will be taken.
There are one or two other suggestions I wish to make in connection with some of the British cases that have come to my attention. In the past we have known of cases where, for example, five members of a family out of six can meet our medical qualifications and it sometimes happens that the department will say that the five may come but the sixth must stay. I should like to say that perhaps we cannot always insist upon grade A immigrants, so to speak, but that we do the best we can to get the best immigrants in an area. If in a family there is one who cannot meet the medical qualifications, particularly if that person be under 21 years of age, then I feel we should allow the whole family to come to Canada and we should take our chances with respect to that family.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will give early consideration to the many recommendations that have been made by the Canadian Bar Association with respect to immigration procedures. Certainly the members of that committee worked hard and long and those recommendations have been before the present administration for some three years. We hope that at an early date some of these suggestions can be incorporated into our immigration procedures. I should like to feel that at an early date, a house committee could be formed in order that we could deal with the many trouble spots in our immigration act, particularly with reference to our procedures.
I suggest to the minister also that where a Canadian employer files an application for a specific person to be his employee, that type of case should be expedited, especially where the minister is absolutely satisfied this is a bona fide application. If the application is delayed too long, let us say beyond six months, the circumstances in the place of employment might change and the

employee may no longer be needed. I would ask that some consideration be given to that type of case.
I have dealt at length with the matter of the quota system, and it is something by means of which I feel we could get many new and wonderful immigrants to Canada. For example, there may be a particular medical student in the Fiji islands who may not be admissible, there may be a medical student possessing wonderful qualifications on the island of Formosa who might be available or the president of the Hong Kong university might wish to come to Canada. When we have no quota system these people are not admissible, shall we say, as a matter of right.
In closing, may I suggest that at an early date we discontinue emphasizing that immigration is a matter of privilege and not of right. I suggest that we in Canada may need the immigrant more than the immigrant needs us. We should say to the people of Great Britain, for example, come and be a part of us; help us to build up this country. The main idea I am trying to convey here is, let us try to create a fair climate at home to encourage these people to come and make a home. I have a further suggestion and it is that we try to convey to tourists that they may proceed through customs and immigration very quickly when they come to Canada. We spend a great deal of money on advertising in the United States inviting people to come here, and we have had occasion to find that when they get to the border they run into major difficulties.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry, but I must advise the hon. member his time has expired.


Leon David Crestohl: I was pointing out some of the anomalies in the present act, and I quite innocently asked the question, who is this genius who is responsible for inserting these anomalies into the act? I was interested in the alacrity with which the minister jumped to her feet and pointed her finger at the genius, the former minister of immigration.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is the usual service.


Leon David Crestohl: I am glad she recognizes his ability because during the three years that she has been in office she has done nothing to correct these anomalies. I think perhaps she should accept some of the responsibility because she has acted upon these sections of the act. I was, of course, not surprised to note the frankness and honesty of the former minister, who rose without hesitation and said, "I was that genius".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe I used the word "genius".
9, 1960	4739
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Leon David Crestohl: Then give me the pleasure of using it because I think very seriously about that. The former minister did state that on reflection today the reasons that necessitated these provisions were not sociological reasons, but were security reasons. I believe that in those years security certainly was a very good reason to adopt the strictest kind of legislation, even though it now appears silly as the former minister had no hesitation in stating. I, therefore, now draw these facts to the attention of the minister, and perhaps these anomalies should be corrected.
For example, under some of these sections if the grandparents of Canadian citizens live in some countries they are admissible to Canada but if they have the misfortune to have grandparents living in another country they would not be admissible to Canada. After all, grandparents and grandchildren are human beings and should be considered as such. I think it is an anomaly to say that because the grandparents live in one country they are admissible and if they live in another country they are not admissible. I should like to ask the minister to look at these anomalies. Then there is the question of children and in this respect I have a little difficulty in considering the act as sociologically humane, if I may use that extravagant language. Children under 21 who are unmarried are admissible to Canada from some countries, but if they are over 21 they are not admissible even though they may still be unmarried. If there is a year's difference in age that clashes with the regulations. Again I point out to the minister this certainly requires a second look. If prospective immigrants to Canada have an unmarried daughter of 20 they can bring her to Canada; she is admissible. However, if that daughter should be 22, even though she may be unmarried, she is not admissible and it may be difficult for the parents to leave that child where she is in order that they may come to Canada. I think that should be looked at.
May I point out another difficult situation which can develop in the case of the parents of Canadian citizens, if the Canadian citizens want to bring their parents to this country. If the father is 64 years of age and the mother is 62, the mother is admissible because she is over 60 but the father is not admissible because he is not yet over 65. The mother can come to Canada but the father cannot. Certainly during the years when security regulations required such provisions for the protection of Canada they may have been justified, but I do not believe the danger is quite as great today.
I therefore think the time has come to examine the act in order, amongst other
4740	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration things, to correct these human touches which are really the most basic in human relations. These regulations seem to conflict with the minister's statement that it is the desire of our immigration law to bring families together, not to separate them. As they exist at present they are an ingenious means contrived to keep them apart. If we are going to blame that result on security, I respectfully submit that the danger is not quite so great now.
This brings me to the question of my wanting to make some observations on revising the act generally. Right from the commencement of this session we have been urging or trying to urge or nudge the minister into telling the house whether she plans to have the Immigration Act revised. At the beginning of the session, if I remember correctly-I have not the quotation in Hansard in front of me at the moment-the minister said that the matter of the revision of the act was receiving the attention of the department or the government, I do not remember which it was. Later on the minister made a statement in the house, as she also did outside of the house, to the effect that there will be no revision of the act at this session. We did not let the matter rest there. We pressed the matter further and on May 19 the hon. member for Trinity put this question and I am now reading from Hansard at pages 4029 and 4030:
I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In the light of statements made outside this house as to the urgency of amending the Immigration Act, can the minister say whether amendments will be brought forward at this present session?
The minister replied as follows:
I have answered that question three times already this session but I am still unable to give a definite answer.
This is a rather contradictory statement when the minister says, "I have already answered the question but I cannot give a definite statement".


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Read my next remark.


Leon David Crestohl: Yes; I will read the next remark. It was as follows:
I should probably explain that that is my Dutch blood coming out.
What a very delightful remark that was, Mr. Chairman. It is very significant. It leads me to digress for a moment from what I want to say. This is a classical example of why the minister should take what I recommended earlier, namely a long range view. I did not know that the minister was of Dutch extraction. Certainly it just confirms that long range view, that we do not look at immigrants coming in and should not look


at the first generation. But certainly I am satisfied that the minister, coming from a fine line of Dutch descent-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is only one of them; I have several others.


Leon David Crestohl: The minister has several other descents or several other lines. This fact more effectively confirms my statement. Earlier I referred to the fact when I mentioned there were a number of members in the House of Commons like the minister who certainly are not native born Canadians whose ancestry goes back 200 or 300 years. I think the only ones who fall into that category would probably be the Indians. I should like to put on the record, as a matter of interest, that the following members of the House of Commons-and I am subject to correction; I may be slightly in error-certainly are today considered to be among the finest citizens in the country. They are the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the hon. member for Fort William, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, the hon. member for High Park, the hon. member for Ontario, the hon. member for Marquette, the hon. member for Hamilton East, the hon. member for Mackenzie and the hon. member for Cartier. I could also name some in the other place. I respectfully say that these are all immigrants into this country. At best they may perhaps be first generation immigrants, although I doubt it. I believe those I have mentioned are not native born Canadians. Certainly no one will question or doubt that they are fine Canadians, of the finest rank and finest level. I repeat that certainly their children and their families will be Canadians almost as native, I think, as any Canadians could wish to be.
That is really taking a long range view. That is what I mean by admitting people into this country as long as they qualify. Certainly this country will have as much reason to be as proud of our immigrants who will come in to the country in the future as we have been proud of those who have come in in the past.
To come back to the subject with which I was dealing and to move away from the minister's ancestors about which I was pleased to learn, I want to talk about the question of revision. I have quoted the minister's answer about revising the act. I should now like to support this thought-and I hope the minister is giving it some serious consideration-by simply quoting from one or two newspaper editorials. First of all I should like to refer to an editorial in the Montreal Star on January 4, 1960, and I will just read a short part of it. It is entitled "Time for Overhaul". I am sure the minister and certainly the members of her staff must have

seen these editorials. However, I want them to go on record. I now quote from the one to which I have just referred:
Without delay, the Immigration Act should be reviewed and the operations of the immigration department surveyed. Either, if not both, is in need of liberalization.
Of course this word "liberalization" is spelled with a small "1". If it were spelled with a capital "L", I would not have been surprised. In my opinion it would have been just as effective, if not more so. I continue reading from the editorial:
Arbitrary behavior on the part of department personnel would lead one to think sometimes that they are constitutionally hostile to immigration. It is a question whether they should have the power of discretion they sometimes exercise.
Then there is another editorial from the same paper at a later date, namely April 27, 1960. It is entitled "Immigration Rules Need Further Change", and it reads in part as follows:
A year ago drastic changes were made in immigration regulations to permit appeal in all deportation cases. The circumstances of the Rebrin case now before a court in Vancouver suggests that the changes were not drastic enough, that it is still possible in this country to deny a person the rights which the Prime Minister is so eager to safeguard by his bill of rights.
This is not intended to be a judgment on the case of Miss Rebrin. It is intended to be a judgment on the Immigration Act and its regulations which still vest too much discretion in the minister and not enough in the law.
Then there is a third quotation I should like to read. It is from the Globe and Mail of May 24, 1960, a quite recent date. It reads in part as follows:
There is a certain attractive logic about the proposition, and if it just happened to be correct, reform of the Immigration Act would be an attractive piece of pre-election legislation. Lord knows, there are enough things wrong with the act now, with its involved procedures and arbitrary authority; the government can hardly be thinking of anything more restrictive. Therefore if it is to be made more liberal, it may have occurred to >>
someone that this will be much too effective voter bait to waste when there is no national fishing expedition in the offing.
I wonder whether there is something to this article? Perhaps the minister does plan to revise the Immigration Act. It is obvious to the house that at one time, not so long ago, she was thinking of revising the act. She said she would, but changed her mind, perhaps because it might have been a little too soon to provide the effect that this article suggests. To me it would be a matter of great indifference when the minister revises the act as long as she does revise it. It needs revision urgently and certainly the minister would be given the credit for a substantial revision of the act.
Mr. Chairman, I think one section of the act, section 39, is violently explosive in many
9, 1960	4741
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration ways. I think the minister and her officials should sometimes feel a little embarrassed by some of the language used by our courts when referring especially to section 39, which section denies any recourse to the courts. I think the minister would do the word "justice" a great deal of good and perhaps enshrine it in the manner it should be enshrined if she would allow appeals to be taken to the courts. That was a bad piece of legislation regardless of who was responsible for it. I do not hesitate to criticize legislation if I think it is bad irrespective of who enacted it. If it is bad, it is bad, and I do not hesitate to say so. But I think the minister could make a lot of corrections and improve the act considerably.
I do not want to burden the record by quoting some of the opinions of our courts, but I would feel very much embarrassed if I were the minister by some of the things our judges have said. I think it is a travesty of justice to say to Canadians, or to anyone for that matter, "You can have no recourse to the court; I, or my officials, are infallible; we don't make mistakes; our word or the decision of an inquiry officer is to be as final as a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada; we have legislated to that effect and parliament has said we have the right to do it." I do not think parliament foresaw that, and if parliament did enact it I think a wise government will bring from time to time before parliament legislation which should be corrected. It would most certainly win commendation and praise from everybody if the minister remedied those defects.
I want to conclude by appealing to the minister and her officials, as I have in the past, to treat this legislation with humanity. It is true that the law of print is cold, but I know of no other department in the government which should lend itself to sympathetic and humane understanding as much as should the department of immigration. This act and acts of a similar kind with respect to naturalization, for example, give this country the reputation of being one of the finest countries in the world, and I urge the minister to see that nothing is done with immigration legislation which might mar that wonderful reputation.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, I have heard many remarks concerning immigrants during the past year, and for that reason I wish to speak about the beneficial impact immigrants have had on the Canadian economy as expressed on different occasions by our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who as a woman has a great understanding of our immigration policy. My remarks should
4742	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration be of great interest to many people of Waterloo North as this part of Waterloo county is one of the greatest cosmopolitan centres in Canada. We in this district well understand the fine contribution these people have made over many years and will continue to make in the future progress of Canada. I understand that this year Canada will welcome the two millionth immigrant since the end of world war II and we are interested in knowing that one out of every eleven persons in this country is now a newcomer.
I believe that the economic contribution of immigrants has three main aspects; its effects on the labour force; the building of new industry and the remanning of our farms; and the contribution of immigrants as consumers. A highly significant fact about post-war immigration is that over three quarters of the immigrant workers are in the highly productive working ages of between 20 and 44. Consequently there is a much lower proportion of immigrants among older workers.
It must be recognized that Canada's future will depend to a large extent on expansion. This in turn will depend on the new developments, some in remote areas, which occur. Development depends on people, and from this it becomes evident that many newcomers from many nations will be welcomed to Canada for all of the foreseeable future.
Opportunities for newcomers usually arise in three ways. First, the development of new jobs in an expanding economy requires skills which cannot be fully met from the domestic labour pool. For example, from 1950 to 1958, while our universities graduated 1,037 architects we admitted 1,493 more, and considering that Canada lost 330 due to emigration these professional people were of vital importance to our national growth, as were also the engineers, draftsmen, designers, teachers, accountants, scientists and others who have added so much to our professional manpower.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you are familiar with the shortage of teachers since the war. It is gratifying to know that in order to overcome this we were fortunate in having 6,105 teachers and professors come to Canada in the five-year period ending December 1958.
Positions also become vacant for immigrants, as native born workers are attracted to other countries. Perhaps many of us do not know that Canada lost more than 10,000 nurses to the United States from 1950 to 1958 and while we have actively sought replacements overseas, our hospitals are still desperately short.


We are hopeful that some day the tide may swing in our favour, that the time will come when Canada will attract more young Americans. In January of this year there was an encouraging sign. At last some of our universities are able to pay higher salaries and to induce not only Canadian teachers to return, but also to attract United States professors. Last year, for example, we admitted 10,350 United States citizens compared to 9,695 in 1958.
In the last two years I have had the privilege of sending almost 1,000 letters to new Canadians in my riding. These people along with others have made a great contribution to the economy of our country. They have become fine citizens and in most cases have lived up to the laws of our country. Hard work, co-operation and harmony have been the keynote of their success. Hard work overcomes financial difficulties. Co-operation enables us to work together as a team. Harmony has been a word of hope for them.
As I said before, our new Canadians have in the past and can in the future contribute much to the welfare of our great country. May I present to hon. members a few examples of the efforts of new Canadians on Canadian soil.
Mr. Leon Koerner, a Czech lumberman deprived of his holdings by Hitler, used his talents to build one of the largest companies of its kind in Canada, providing employment for 4,500 workers. Mr. Koerner soon saw that the abundant hemlock was little used by Canadians and created a brand new product, Alaska pine. By 1956 his company had many holdings. This gentleman also set up the Koerner Foundation for the promotion of art, culture and welfare. Who can measure the importance of this single immigrant to our economy?
In Vancouver three Austrian immigrants founded Canadian Forest Products Limited and built it into one of the giants of the west coast lumber industry with several divisions employing well over 1,000 people.
Thomas Bata, the Czech shoemaker, created not only an industry in Canada but also founded a new town around his plant.
For 12 years the Bick family from Holland were ordinary muck farmers near Toronto before seizing an opportunity to grow and market fresh pickles. The Bick Pickle Company during its peak last year employed 140 workers and produced a million cases of 33 different varieties.
These are but a few of the newcomers who have given much to Canada. But there are hundreds of smaller operations woven into the texture of our economy. Last year the settlement division of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration reported that it had

helped 1,750 immigrants to buy 1,612 small businesses. These provided a livelihood for 6,518 persons. This was a record year for the number of immigrants established. Some of these small businesses turn into highly profitable concerns which become important elements of the Canadian economy.
Farm settlements in 1959 were equally encouraging and showed a 16.7 per cent increase over.the previous year. Last year immigrants reported they had bought 876 farms and rented 145 more, compared with 786 farms bought and 73 rented in 1958. Half of these gave employment to others beside the operator.
Mixed farming, involving the raising of cattle in combination with the production of hogs and poultry and the growing of some cash crops, is chosen by half the immigrant farmers. Dairying is the next most popular type of farming.
Undoubtedly this thriftiness stems from the knowledge that a loss has been sustained in the sale of one's home and belongings and the move to another country. The newcomer very naturally wants to recover these material losses as quickly as possible. Also he wants to feel that he belongs to Canada.
Waterloo county, as have other counties, has been blessed with thrifty people of all nationalities enjoying freedom of religion, freedom of speech, et cetera. We cannot measure these talents, but we know that we are richer for possessing them and that they help Canada grow toward maturity. Let us give our sincere encouragement to all newcomers. They need a word of welcome which so many people of our Waterloo North have extended to them. A helping hand as we go along life's pathway together could be the difference between success or failure for them. The future lies before us, beckoning and challenging us to grasp the opportunities to build a great nation. Together, old and new Canadians, let us rise to the challenge of the soaring sixties.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. member for Parkdale is not in his seat. I understood the hon. gentleman to interpret the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver East as representing an attitude of restriction in immigration policy in the sense of keeping the immigration flow to a minimum. On this basis one can assume that the attitude of the hon. member for Park-dale favours wide open, uncontrolled immigration. The hon. gentleman was unkind in placing that interpretation upon the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East and I assume they both said the same thing using different words.
9, I960	4743
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The C.C.F. attitude toward immigration has been expressed on many occasions as being that the influx of immigrants to Canada should be geared to economic and employment opportunities in the country and that when we have a period of high level of unemployment it is unfair both to our economy and to the immigrant to hold out promises of opportunities in a land of milk and honey. Perhaps that is what the hon. member for Parkdale was really saying.
The hon. gentleman then went on to say that the philosophies of the C.C.F. and the Canadian Labour Congress in respect to immigration are similar. As far as I am concerned, I have not the foggiest idea of the attitude of the Canadian Labour Congress toward immigration; it may coincide with the view we have expressed, or it may not. I have spoken to other members of the C.C.F. group about this question and they are in the same position. Perhaps this situation will apply in a number of other fields. The Canadian Labour Congress develops its own policies, even though we are now discussing enlarging the basis of the political party to which I belong. This does not mean, however, that the pronouncements of one section of the economy will coincide with those of another. But I fear that if I pursue this line I shall be ruled out of order, so perhaps I had better cease and desist.
The hon. lady may recall that a couple of days ago I asked a question with regard to a return, and I should like to refer to it because it relates to the subject before us. On Wednesday, February 3 a question of mine was made an order for return. Now, some months later, I find that the return is still not ready. I do not know whether this was a question whose answer the Acting Secretary of State indicated would be ready in a week or not, but perhaps I should refer briefly to the question itself and point out that it deals with orders for the deportation of persons from Canada since January 1, 1958 and makes inquiries as to the names and addresses of those concerned, whether there are any dependents, what was the reason for signing these orders, the number of executions, and so on. Perhaps it may not be desirable that some of these questions should be answered here by giving names. I believe the minister indicated something like that when she spoke at the time the question was transferred as an order for return.
Be that as it may, the material in which I was chiefly interested concerned the number of orders for deportation which had been made, whether any had been cancelled, the reasons for cancellation and so forth. It

Royal Assent
has appeared, in the view of some people and, certainly, in the view of some of those persons who have been ordered to be deported, that some discrimination may have taken place in connection with these orders. I hope the return will be tabled at an early date. I do not know whether these estimates will be passed today or not but, if not, I hope the information will be available before we enter again upon a discussion of these estimates so that the committee will be in a better position to consider the reasons for these orders for deportation.
With regard to one such order in particular there has been a great deal of publicity and discussion both in the newspapers and in the house-the case of Mr. Weldon Chan to which reference was made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. There has been some public concern about whether the slight technicality which existed with regard to this person's entry into Canada might not fall in a class which could be overlooked. We may discover whether the minister can undertake to overlook things of this nature, when the order for return to which I have referred is made.
In any event, I received a letter from a lady in the area around Smithers in which reference is made to Mr. Chan and his family. I do not intend to read the letter in full, but I will give the committee the gist of it. It is dated February 3, 1960, and the writer says she has been in touch with the minister and would have liked Mr. Chan to have been given permission to stay in Canada. She would like to have had him come to that part of the country. This lady has a farm, or ranch, of some 400 acres and she indicated in her letter that she would like Chan and his family to work on the farm on a 50-50 basis.


Charles Edward Rea: I hear the knock of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa
June 9, 1960
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, the 9th June, at 5.00 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. Joly de Lotbiniere Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between Canada and Australia.
An act to amend the Windsor Harbour Commissioners Act.
An act to incorporate the Oshawa Harbour Commissioners.
An act to incorporate the Nanaimo Harbour Commissioners.
An act to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
An act to amend the Canada-Netherlands Income Tax Agreement Act, 1957.
An act to amend the Yukon Act.
An act to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1961.

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



DEPARTMENT OP CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
50. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,219,129.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, just prior to the arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod I had started to relate to the committee some information with regard to Weldon Chan and some correspondence that had been entered into with respect to him and his family. I was referring to Mrs. Harvey, who had written to me as well as to the minister, and who has undertaken to have Mr. and Mrs. Chan and family work on her 400-acre farm on a 50-50 basis. I said I thought that was helpful and generous of Mrs. Harvey. As a consequence thereof I wrote to the minister indicating the gist of the letter I had received from Mrs. Harvey who, incidentally, also wrote to the Prime Minister on this same subject, and the minister replied at that time. Perhaps I might refer to her letter of February 16, which is as follows:
This refers to your letter of February 11 concerning the Weldon Chan family.
Mrs. Harvey's letter to the Prime Minister was referred to me for attention and I might say that she also wrote to me direct in the case.
As you no doubt are aware, Mr. Chan has taken legal proceedings and the matter is now before the courts. You will appreciate, therefore, I am unable to make any comments at this time.

Mrs. Harvey was advised in the matter on February 16.
I understand that since that time whatever legal proceedings had been entered into have been completed, and Mr. Chan is not now involved in any legal proceedings. I may be incorrect in this understanding, but if I am correct the subject matter is not now classified as sub judice. I would, therefore, appreciate, either at this time or some later date if the minister would like to review the matters that are on file, some comments with respect to the subject matter of Mrs. Harvey's letter. Perhaps the minister could advise Mrs. Harvey and myself, as well as the members of the committee, just what her attitude is now that the legal proceedings are out of the way. I rather think the minister would be continuing a gross injustice to Mr. Chan and his family if the original position of the minister with respect to deportation still exists and is allowed to continue to exist.
I think it would appear even more awkward in comparing this instance involving one person of Chinese extraction with-I do not know how many; I have heard mentioned 13,000, 11,000, 2,000 but however many there are makes little difference-other people of Chinese extraction who have entered the country through what might be termed illegal means or illegal methods. If the minister, as she indicated, is going to provide the services of the immigration branch to those of Chinese extraction who have entered the country through forged documents, bribery, conspiracy or whatever other means were used to get here, then I think certainly she should do so in the case of one additional person of Chinese extraction, namely Mr. Chan, who used some subterfuge to get here. Certainly I do not think he engaged in bribery nor do I think he entered Canada through any racket, blackmail or bribery scheme. I think the minister should review her decision or the decision of the department with respect to Mr. Chan and should take whatever steps are necessary to legalize or regularize his entry to Canada so that he will no longer continue to feel as a hounded and searched-for individual.
With respect to the number of Chinese people or people of Chinese extraction who have entered Canada and with respect to whom the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are now conducting an investigation, I should now like to make some comments. From what I can gather it would appear that most of these entries or practically all of them originated in Hong Kong and that the department has a staff of immigration officials in Hong Kong and undoubtedly employs, perhaps on a
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration part-time basis, bilingual investigators to investigate and to study the various applications which are made by people for entry to Canada from Hong Kong.
If, as is apparently the situation, there are a number of people of Chinese extraction who have entered Canada through this illegal method or this racket that has existed, then this fact would appear to cast some doubt upon the efficiency of the immigration officials in Hong Kong, whether they be officials of the department in the class of civil servants or whether they be people employed on a part-time basis to assist in the investigation. It is certain that the immigration department was involved to some extent in investigating these various applications, in checking the facts set out in the applications, checking the various documents and so on. This would seem to cast a great deal of doubt upon the entire structure of the immigration department which exists in Hong Kong, if that is where the bulk of these people came from. It would appear that it would not only cast some doubt upon the activities and efficiency of that branch in Hong Kong with respect to those who have entered Canada illegally but it might well cast doubt upon the opinions and decisions of that branch with respect to those applications which have been turned down.
There is one instance which I have had occasion to deal with, namely a gentleman in Prince Rupert who has two sons who were living in Hong Kong. At the time of his application to bring one of the sons over here, that son, as claimed by the father, was under the age of 21 and was single; and normally he could be expected to qualify. However, another son was over the age of 21 and was married and, as I understand it, would therefore not fall within the class of people who were eligible to enter Canada. However, regardless of the very definite statement which the father made to me and to officials of the immigration department that the son who applied to come over here was in fact the son who was under 21 years of age and single, the attitude of the immigration authorities is that the sons were mixed up and that it was another married son who applied in the name of the son who was under 21 and single. This information, as I have had it related to me, was adduced on evidence after investigation by authorities in the immigration department in Hong Kong. As I say, if in the case of I do not know how large a number of persons-many hundreds or thousands-the immigration officials were fooled or duped or maybe participated in this scheme of having people come to Canada-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I really feel that I must rise and protest. I do not think the hon.
4746	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration member should impute any such action to the officials of my department. I take strong exception to those words.


Mr. Peters:: It is worse than that.


Frank Howard: Then I should relate what was told to me by Chinese people in Prince Rupert and Chinese people that I know in Vancouver also because I lived a number of years in Vancouver and know a great number of Chinese people there. They mentioned this some time ago to me, two or three years ago. This individual in Prince Rupert particularly said to me that he could undoubtedly get his son over here for $3,000 or thereabouts but he did not want to engage in this sort of corrupt system and bribery, that he would sooner operate through the normal channels and completely out in the open. He said he could have done this. Others in the Chinese community that I know also mentioned that people working with the immigration department were involved in this sort of scheme in Hong Kong.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, this is
exactly the point I am making. The main reason we started the investigation was that we had heard these rumours. If the hon. member has any information specifically naming any individual in any instance I can assure him the whole matter will be carefully investigated and if substantiated, charges will be laid. But so far I have been unable to find anything casting any vestige of doubt on the integrity of my staff.


William Arnold Peters: The whole thing is rotten; the whole staff is rotten.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member is making allegations without any basis at all. Put up or shut up.


Frank Howard: This is the usual thing that happens when the hon. lady gets upset, we have some uncontrollable reference to allegations.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The only thing that is uncontrolled is the allegations the hon. member is making.


Frank Howard: The hon. lady insisted that I develop this line of thought, something which I did not want to do. What I was talking about was a system of blackmail or bribery or racketeering that existed in Hong Kong, which the hon. lady mentioned a number of times and which is now being investigated. All I did was to make reference to it, as to how this might be possible and then she insisted on my developing that matter further. Then when I wanted to develop it further and explain to her the things which had been told to me, things which she now admits were told to her and


which are the basis of this investigation, she accuses me of slandering these people. I am not slandering anybody. I am telling you, Mr. Chairman, at the minister's insistence exactly some things that apparently have been told to her, namely these rumours that are going around.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I referred to rumours but the hon. member is making allegations.


Frank Howard: I submit again that the minister insisted, that she objected to some slight allusion I made to this question of bribery and then wanted me to develop it further, as I did. Then she objected to my developing it further. She cannot have it both ways.
If as a result of these investigations which are taking place she discovers that these rumours are incorrect, then that is fine and dandy. If she is unable to discover where the problem exists, then we will not know any more than we do now. If we can find that these rumours are correct and that charges have been made, we might as well clear up the problem. All I have done is to carry this thing through as the minister insisted. I did not want to get involved in this in the first place except in an incidental way. Accusations have been made in a general way. The figure of up to 13,000 has been used to indicate the number of people of Chinese extraction who have come to Canada illegally. Reference was made in the newspapers to a $44 million black market industry, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate today. At no time has there been any thought expressed as to whether this is correct or incorrect. Apparently it is being investigated, and that was the only thing I had reference to.
However, I do not think the minister can get away from this point, that if there are any illegal entries from China who are here as the result of the black market ring which exists, if they are able to get by the immigration officials with forged documents and papers or incorrect evidence, and so on, then one is entitled to cast some doubt on the efficiency of these people to deal with the question. We are entitled to question that efficiency also when it comes to rejecting applications for admission. I only raised that point as it concerned one individual with whom I had intimate dealings so far as his attempting to get his son over here was concerned, which incidentally was some years ago.
The hon. member for Cartier and also the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard made reference to section 39 of the act, and I would like to know who it is who has the final decision and discretion on these questions

of deportation, questions of admission and so on. Section 39 of the act was also cited in the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Norris in the matter of Miss Irene Rebrin. I forget the date, but it was recent anyhow. Section 39 of the act says:
No court and no judge or officer thereof has jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with any proceeding, decision or order of the minister, deputy minister, director, immigration appeal board, special inquiry officer or immigration officer had, made or given under the authority and in accordance with the provisions of this act relating to the detention or deportation of any person, upon any ground whatsoever, unless such person is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile.
If, as I read this section, final and complete authority is given to the minister to decide these cases, then I think this is far too much authority and power for the minister to have. That includes not only this minister but any minister, even the genius from Bonavista-Twillingate, and I am glad the hon. member for Cartier used that word in a sort of facetious way. If this is what this particular section means and it prevents any court from reviewing any particular case, then I think far too much authority is given, one, to the minister and, two, it is far too much for her or any other minister to ask for. Proceedings under this section would allow the minister and the government of which she is a member to be subjected to charges of discrimination, because if a person who is ordered to be deported is not given the reasons why he is being deported and he hears of another instance of a person who falls into somewhat the same category who should have been deported but was not, then he would ask himself why he was being deported and the other person allowed to stay.
This is the effect of this particular section of the act, that it places the minister in a very awkward and embarrassing position and subject to charges of discrimination and favouritism to one person over another. Mr. Justice Norris also made some comments about that. He said:
The provisions of this section constitute an attempt to bar recourse to the courts to all persons, other than Canadian citizens or persons having a Canadian domicile, who may consider themselves aggrieved by some decision of an immigration official, which attempt has been abortive only in part because of the determination of learned judges throughout Canada to ensure through the application of the prerogative writs of habeas corpus, certiorari and mandamus that the liberty of the stranger within our gates will be preserved.
So apparently the courts have undertaken, by the three legal processes that Mr. Justice Norris mentioned here, to bring forward for review occasionally the cases of people who 79951-0-299
9, 1960	4747
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration have grievances against decisions of the minister or of the department. I think it was by way of habeas corpus or certiorari that the Irene Rebrin case got into the hands of the courts.
It would appear to me that one of the immediate things the minister should have done was to remove that particular section which prevents, except under certain circumstances and through certain legal processes, individuals who feel aggrieved by decisions of the immigration officer or the minister, or somebody else in her department, from taking this question to the courts, appealing to the courts of the land, and asking them to decide whether or not there was justification for issuing the order being appealed. While the minister may be waiting for approval-


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, as we have only a little time to go until six o'clock, that possibly the hon. member could continue. It might save time in the long run because we are in committee and he can come back again.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee consent to the hon. member continuing?


Frank Howard: If I might comment on that, Mr. Chairman, another hon. member was in somewhat the same position this afternoon and I would not want to take advantage at this stage of the generous offer of the minister.
(Translation):


Mr. Deschalelels:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on a demagogic election advertisement in L'Action Catholique of June 6, 1960, headed:
A question calling for an answer.
And I quote:
Why did you bring 1,533,000 immigrants into Canada in the space of 10 years?
And in the next paragraph:
When Mr. Lesage had a say in the administration of this country, "he left the door wide open to excessive immigration whose unfortunate effects are now being felt-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I doubt very much that the matter which the hon. member is bringing up comes under the jurisdiction of this parliament and is in any way relevant to the citizenship and immigration estimates.
I realize he wants to comment on a political advertisement concerning the election campaign now under way in the province of
4748	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Quebec, but I really cannot see how reference to this subject has anything to do with the citizenship and immigration estimates.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on the point you have raised it seems to me there is no difference between an announcement made by someone in an election and anything published by anyone else about immigration in this country. Immigration is under the jurisdiction of this parliament and the present minister. If untrue or exaggerated statements are made about immigration and if there are statements that any hon. member wishes to refer to in this connection, surely we are in a free country and a free parliament and the hon. member should have a perfect right to discuss them notwithstanding the fact that there are sensitive people in some of the provinces where there are elections.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member may be right in certain respects but up to the point when I interrupted the hon. gentleman he was not relating his comments to the item under discussion. It seemed to me that he intended only to discuss the position of some provincial leaders on this question. I do not think this is pertinent because we are discussing the federal policy with regard to immigration.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I was reading a two or a three-line paragraph on the federal government's immigration policy, which has had a certain impact, particularly in the province of Quebec, as well as in every other province.
I just want to quote two or three lines, and then to comment on this advertisement. So I think every one of my remarks will have a bearing on the item under consideration.
I quote those two or three lines:
-he left the door wide open to excessive immigration, whose unfortunate effects are now being felt not only in the province of Quebec, but in the nine other provinces of Canada.
At the outset of my remarks, I used the word "demagogic" quite rightly, because in the Larousse dictionary, I find the word "demagogue" defined as follows:
One who pretends to promote the interests of the people in order to win its favour.
Now I must point out that those who run such advertisements are very careful not to run them in Canada's Engligh language newspapers, and that this type of advertisement- Colombo plan style-usually appear just before an election.
Now I want to establish something I think is quite in line with the general item now
[The Chairman.]

before us, namely that what I indicated a moment ago is, first at variance with the facts, and second, at variance with the immigration policy of the Conservatives who, in 1955, 1956 and 1957, accused the Liberal government of being too restrictive in its immigration policy. Finally, I will show that this advertisement is counter to the social doctrine of the church. As to the first point, when I say that the advertisement does not agree with the facts, I must say that of all immigrants admitted to Canada in 1957, for instance, only 19 per cent settled in the province of Quebec.
As a proof I need only quote the figures supplied in answer to question No. 415, asked by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), and these are the figures given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in this respect: In 1957, of a total of 282,164 immigrants, 55,073, i.e. 19 per cent, settled in the province of Quebec, whereas 147,097, or 51 per cent settled in Ontario, and 79,994, i.e. 30 per cent in the other provinces.
I have therefore established, according to the official figures supplied by the department of immigration, that the percentage of immigrants to Canada who settled in the province of Quebec is 19 per cent. Therefore, we can say that this figure, 19 per cent, has had nothing to do with the present unemployment situation either in Canada or in the province of Quebec; and the best proof of it is the fact that in the province of Ontario, where the great majority of immigrants have settled, unemployment is much lower than in the province of Quebec, where as I say, 19 per cent only of the immigrants have settled.
May I call it six o'clock?
(Text):
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resinned at 8 p.m. (Translation) :
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned at six o'clock, I was saying that only 19 per cent of the immigrants to Canada settled in the province of Quebec and that more of them settled in Toronto alone than in all the province of Quebec. It is, therefore, inaccurate to contend that the present unemployment situation in Quebec in some way or other can be blamed on those 19 per cent, since after absorbing the vast majority of all immigrants, the province of Ontario has much less unemployment than Quebec.

The premises of the advertisement which I read at the opening of my remarks-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Are you dealing with unemployment or immigration?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If my hon. friend has anything to say on this subject, he is going to have an opportunity to do so, for at the end of my remarks I intend to put three questions to him and ask him to answer them.
So the premises to that demagogic advertisement are absolutely false. Furthermore, it is a well established fact today that the immigrants who were brought in during the years of prosperity we enjoyed-I mean more particularly the years up to 1957-created more jobs. May I refer to an article in the Montreal Star of May 15, 1958, entitled: (Text):
Immigrants to Canada create more jobs than they take, according to W. A. McFaul, district superintendent of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
"Contrary to popular misconception," said Mr. McFaul, in an address last night. .. "for every 10 immigrants who entered the labour force during the post-war period, 18 others were wives, children or dependents of those workers whose consumption contributed significantly to the stimulation of production and thus created employment."
(Translation):
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from an article that appeared in Le Droit for February 25, 1960, under the following heading:
False patriotism harmful to Quebec.
"A false patriotism and the pointless fear that characterizes the French Canadian reaction to immigrants are the only possible explanations for the fact that over eight years, namely from 1950 to 1958, immigrants started 805 new businesses or industries in Ontario, as against 153 in Quebec over the same period".
Mr. Chairman, can immigrants be blamed for keeping out of Quebec, when it is known that the government of that province washes its hands of such matters as employment and unemployment?
However, contrary to the claims of this election advertisement, and despite the years of prosperity we had under the Liberal administration up to 1957, our immigration policy remained selective, we kept to the middle of the road, while the then Conservative opposition, which was friendly to the present Quebec government, was calling for mass immigration. To prove my point, let me quote from page 1161 of Hansard a statement made by none other than the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton):
79951-0-299i
9. 1960	4749
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration (Text):
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. 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?
(Translation):
As I just stated, Mr. Chairman, in the eyes of the Conservative opposition of the day, we followed a policy of selective immigration during the years of prosperity, whereas our friends opposite called for mass immigration. In other words we were blamed for not admitting enough immigrants into Canada. In this regard I shall quote a few items, like this excerpt from La Presse of February 16, 1955, entitled:
The Conservatives want to step up immigration.
Mr. Davie Fulton introduced a non-confidence motion and advocated more active recruiting in Great Britain. The "Conservative" opposition vigorously criticized the government's immigration policy yesterday in the Commons.
It was Mr. Davie Fulton, Conservative for Kamloops, who opened fire, accusing the government of having planned for only a small Canada, because it was slowing down immigration.
The number of immigrants fell from 194,000 in 1951 to a little more than 150,000 last year, and it will probably not be greater in 1955. "This government's trend is to gradually decrease the number of people from abroad entering Canada", said Mr Fulton.
I have here another article from L'Action Catholique of April 2, 1957, entitled:
We must increase our population or perish, states Mr. J. Diefenbaker.
"We have to increase our population or perish '' said the Conservative leader at a press conference which took place at the Canadian ethnic press club, a group representing 28 foreign-language papers in Canada.
I also want to quote another article published in Le Droit of February 16, 1955, under the heading:
Fulton blasts the federal government for neglecting British immigration.
"We are blaming this government under-estimat-infi British immigration and unduly encouraging any other immigration, at the expense of immigration from the British isles", stated the member for Kamloops, Mr. Davie Fulton, yesterday in the House of Commons.
Mr. Chairman, I want to put it clearly that such statement erroneously condemning the former administration's immigration policy, is directly opposed to the social doctrine of the church. Now I shall quote the following excerpts:
Immigration and rural settlement-two most
urgent problems.
4750	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
This was printed in he Droit for September 23, 1954.
Vatican City-The twofold and far-reaching issue of rural settlement and immigration is one of great urgency in Canada and of particular significance for the church, as can be gathered from the message sent by His Holiness Pope Pius XII on the occasion of the 31st session of the Social Weeks of Canada (French section) which are opening tonight at Mont Laurier and will deal with that twofold theme.
The Catholics' contribution to the solution of the complex issues raised by the influx of new people could and should be of first importance. The welcome given the newcomer, his psychological adaptation to his new environment, his economic, cultural, moral and religious difficulties: those are the many fields in which we are entitled to expect the sons of the church to compete in open and considerate ingenuity and charity.
I have here another article on the same matter, taken from he Devoir of Friday, September 24, 1954, entitled:
Fear of the immigrant: an inferiority complex.
Cardinal Leger refutes objections to immigration.
His Eminence Cardinal P. E. Leger who, last evening, was honorary chairman at the opening session of the Social Week, in Mont Laurier, refuted objections currently raised against immigration by putting it on a par with genuine social evils, like unemployment, inflation, housing shortage, rural exodus, and the small number of property owners in urban areas.
"The real Christian", concluded the Cardinal, "should see in the immigrant not a foreigner or a rival, but a brother. The real citizen should see in him a man having an equal right to the privileges which the country affords to all those who are working towards its greatness ... The unity of our country and the greatness of our church demand from each of us, at this time, a great power of assimilation. Triumph of charity alone can ensure the peaceful victory of a people whose various elements must blend into a unity respecting both the individual and freedom".
Mr. Chairman, that advertisement was putting a question. I replied to it. To whoever is responsible for that demagogic advertisement, I should like, in turn, to ask a few questions, and I invite the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) to answer them at the end of my remarks.
I should like to know what the Quebec government authorities think of that invitation published in the Belfast Telegraph of December 6, 1959, which is entitled:
(Text):
Share in Canada's great future. Reduced emigrant rates.
(Translation):
-which lists immediate job opportunities in Canada in about 75 trades, including jobs for bricklayers, butchers, carpenters, toolmakers, etc. I should like to know what the Quebec government authorities, who are friendly with the present federal government, think of that ridiculous invitation to
[Mr. Deschatelets.j
invite and admit, in Canada, immigrants whose livelihood depends upon their having jobs, while in the trades listed in that invitation, hundreds of thousands of Canadians are unemployed?
In that connection, Mr. Chairman, on May 25, 1960, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) asked the following question:
(Text):
May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the high total of 787,000 unplaced applicants according to the figures released today by the dominion bureau of statistics, would the Prime Minister express his views today on the statement he made in London to the effect that our labour force will welcome at this time tens of thousands of immigrants?
The answer of the Prime Minister, as found at page 4222 of Hansard, was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what has already been said in that connection.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, such a statement is a far cry from the demagogic advertisement I read at the beginning of my speech. Moreover, the surprising fact is that those two wrong interpretations come from the same family.
In any event, the third question is as follows: if, in the circumstances, the premier of Quebec sincerely feels that such an immigration policy, either under our administration or under the present administration, is harmful to the interest of the province of Quebec, why has he never mentioned the fact? Why did he never take up i the matter with the present government over the past four or five months? And why has he waited till just before the elections to raise the matter?
Moreover, if he was aware of the seriousness of this problem, why did the present Quebec premier, when he went to the Ontario legislature fail to express his views on this important national question?
I now ask our Conservative friends, especially the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, to reply to these three questions: What do they think of the statement made by the Prime Minister before he left London, to the effect that this year, during this unemployment period, we could assimilate tens of thousands of immigrants? What do our Quebec friends, and especially our friend from Chambly-Rouville, think of the invitation published in December in the Belfast Telegraph asking tradesmen to come over here, when we had 700,000 unemployed and were unable to provide jobs for our Canadians? Moreover, what do they think of the stand taken

by Quebec provincial authorities regarding that insidious electoral advertisement published a few days ago which is contrary to the policy advocated for many years by their own party and their own leader?
Mr. Chairman, our immigration policy under the Liberal government, even during years of prosperity, was constantly being reviewed in the light of our requirements, of our assimilation capacity and of the economic situation changing from year to year. But, times have changed, and I suggest that in all fairness to the immigrants themselves, it is utterly ridiculous to allow into Canada immigrants who have to earn a living, when our tradesmen are now unemployed.
We must always consider this immigration question with great humanity and generosity, but also with a lot of good sense, according to present needs.
I had not meant to take part in the discussion on these estimates, but after seeing this demagogic election advertisement published in Quebec French language newspapers, but not in English language papers, I felt bound to answer those insidious claims; I owed it to the intelligence of Canadian and Quebec voters, and also to the truth.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have been very interested in this department for some time not because I know anybody who wants to come to Canada but because I have a number of Chinese people in my riding in whose problems I am very interested. I came to Ottawa three years ago expecting that eventually the government was going to do something, and particularly a new government which was pledged to equality, to eliminate discrimination and a number of other things. I expected they were going to do something, particularly in connection with the immigration department. I can tell you tonight, Mr. Chairman, that this government is not doing anything about that and is not capable of doing anything about it. In my opinion, they have not the intelligence even to know what is going on in that department. I am pleased to see these representatives from the department here tonight on their own time, and I think some of them ought to be here because I think some of them are connected with this problem that has developed in China, particularly in Hong Kong, and in my opinion some of them must have had some knowledge of this situation or it would not have gone on as it has.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I have seen letters written by the minister, by the Prime Minister and by other officials connected with the department, to Chinese people over the last three years telling them that there is going to be a revision that will be advantageous to them. The government is going to eliminate the discrimination that prevents them from bringing their relatives into this country. This is the type of information that has come to our attention over the last few years. This is a letter addressed to the minister and it is signed by Ruth Lok, chairman of the committee on immigration, C.C.A. In this letter she points out:
We understand that the Canadian Immigration Act is undergoing revision, and that views and criticisms concerning various sections can still be made with submissions as to how the act can become more equitable and democratic.
This is the type of letter I have seen go out to these Chinese people promising them that if they will be patient the act will be revised and some of the inequalities now affecting them will be changed to their advantage.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid I did not hear the name of the person who wrote this letter. I do not believe it came from my department.


William Arnold Peters: This was sent to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, parliament buildings: In the matter of certain revisions affecting the immigration to Canada of persons of Asian ancestry; submitted by the Chinese Canadian association and the national Japanese Canadian citizens association, 415 Spa-dina avenue, Toronto.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member says that I made these promises. Where is the document in which I made any promises?


William Arnold Peters: I said I have seen letters written to the Chinese people, which they have shown me, and which are similar to this.


An hon. Member:: Produce them.


William Arnold Peters: I am not in any position to produce somebody else's mail. I have been shown these letters, and I have read them.


An hon. Member:: You never saw them.


William Arnold Peters: You may never have seen them. You have not seen very much, anyway. You probably don't talk to any Chinese people. You are probably as backward and ignorant as these immigration people.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; it seems to me that before the hon. member goes any further along this line I want to say right now that I have not

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration written any letters to any members of the Chinese community telling them I would make revisions in their favour.


William Arnold Peters: I cannot contradict that. I will try to produce the letters. I think I can.


An hon. Member:: Yes you do that.


William Arnold Peters: I will certainly get photostatic copies of them. They will not be exactly as the minister says because I did not say that. I said that they were going to be to their advantage, and they would probably solve their particular problem. I never suggested, and I am not suggesting now, that the minister herself promised these people relief in specific cases.


An hon. Member:: You just said it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is what you said.


William Arnold Peters: Not in specific cases, but in a general way. Certainly this is the impression these organizations gained as is indicated by the letter I have just read. I have seen these letters. I have received this information over a period of three years.
I have been advised quite recently that if people of Asiatic descent want to bring their relations in, whom they felt it was advisable to bring in, they should bring them in exactly in the manner a lot of Chinese people have had to come into this country, that is to pay their money and bring them in through the back door. I think this is the way it is being done. If we use the figure of 11,000, and it has not been disputed by the departmental officials, and use the figure 1 have seen of $3,000, that means $33 million worth of graft some place. I would suggest that the government and the department cannot be so ignorant of the situation that they do not know this goes on.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member stated that this figure of 11,000 had not been disputed by the department. The Minister of Justice disputed that in the house not so long ago and said that this was not an official figure at all. I just want that brought to your attention.


William Arnold Peters: This afternoon the minister said her department had neither confirmed nor denied it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am stating what the Minister of Justice said.


William Arnold Peters: We did not discuss the matter with the Minister of Justice. I did not hear him make that statement, but I did hear the minister responsible for this department


make the statement to which I have referred. It seems to me we should make up our minds whether or not we want Chinese, Japanese, and in fact Asiatics in Canada. It is very unfair to hold this carrot out in front of the Asiatic people and tell them that if certain conditions are met, and we hope to meet them immediately, we hope to eliminate this discrimination and then you will be allowed to come into the country. This seems to me to be very unfair and to be a discriminatory way of treating these people.
We all know that there are people in Canada who would say that we have to bring in so many British for every one we bring in of French ancestry; that we would have to bring in so many Portuguese for every Italian we bring in. There are people who calculate exactly the composition of the Canadian population they want in the next five or ten years. In my opinion, this is not the honest or fair way of doing it. It is even more unfair when we tell people that we are going to change the act, that we are going to change the discriminatory clauses in the act so it will permit equality.
I hope some hon. members have taken the opportunity of reading just what the act does say. The Chinese and Japanese people have given close consideration to the various sections of the act. This is a brief presented by the Chinese benevolent association in 1958. They may have presented other briefs since that time, but if they have I do not happen to have a copy. Perhaps they agree with me that there does not seem to be a dam bit of sense in bringing a brief to a government which has already promised to do what you are asking but has no intention of doing it.
In the brief they point out the particular classes that can come in. They go into the history of the Asiatic people who first came to Canada, their reasons for coming and the services they rendered to the Canadian people. Then they point out on page 3 that racial discrimination still exists in the immigration law. The brief goes on to say:
In the briefs presented to your predecessors, it was pointed out that the discriminatory nature of these laws has created great hardships for many families of Chinese Canadians who fled the communist regime in China and who are now living in Hong Kong in the hope that they may be reunited with husbands and parents.
I have here some place the break-down of the classes of people that are allowed to come to Canada from some countries, and those from Asiatic countries who are not allowed to come. The qualifying parts of the act are found in section 20, as amended by

order in council P.C. 1957/1675-Hansard, January 25, 1958-which states as follows:
Amendment to immigration regulation P.C. 19541351. P.C. 1957-1675 of December 20, 1957, revokes paragraph (d) of section 20 and substitutes the following therefor:
"a person who is a citizen of a country other than a country referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) or in section 21, if such a person is the husband, the wife or the unmarried child under 21 years of age, the father where he is over 65 years of age, or the mother where she is over 60 years of age, of a Canadian citizen or of a person legally admitted to Canada for permanent residence who is residing in Canada and who has applied for and is in a position to receive and care for any such person, but no such child shall be landed in Canada unless his father or his mother, as the case may be, is landed in Canada concurrently with him."
Then the brief goes on to say this:
The fundamental structure of the Canadian immigration policy stresses the union of the family. However, when section 20, as set forth in the above paragraph, is carefully scrutinized, the act reveals preference for the families of one country against those of another. Why, in this democratic country of Canada should a Canadian act differentiate and discriminate on grounds of race, colour, or ancestry?
It is true the Canadian immigration department has recognized the need for family unity and has provided for relatives of certain Canadians to be admitted into Canada by section 20, paragraphs
(c) and (d) of the act. However, there is a disparity, between paragraphs (c) and (d), which restricts the interpretation of what constitutes a family if it is of Asian ancestry.
We respectfully submit that, if the section is carefully examined, for every 16 categories of persons admitted through paragraph (c), only five are admitted through paragraph (d). We respectfully submit the following chart which is a breakdown of the categories contained in section 20 (c) and (d).
It shows the 16 categories in the one class and for Asiatics only five particular classes. It also goes on to say this:
Furthermore, although the ratio is 16 to 5, section 20 (d) is further limited in that it states, "No such child shall be landed in Canada unless his father or his mother, as the case may be, is landed in Canada concurrently with him", and limits parents, "Mother must be 60 years or over, and father must be 65 years of age or over."
It is evident that a Canadian whose ancestry falls into section 20 (c) has the privilege of forging a much wider family tie than has a Canadian whose ancestry falls into section 20 (d).
We take this opportnuity to reveal the hardship Canadians, whose ancestry comes under section 20
(d)	, have suffered due to the inequality in the Immigration Act. The cases appended to this brief have been submitted to the Japanese association with the hope that the applicant will be united to his or her kin from Asia.
Anyway this gives you an indication of how discriminatory this is. These people are appealing not to the old Liberal government, which was a decaying government which had been here too long and had become set in its ways and certainly had no intention of changing its mind at all; they are appealing to a new government under the leadership
9, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of John Diefenbaker, the sponsor of a bill of rights for the Canadian people. How can this parliament grant a bill of rights to the Canadian people by law and at the same time have on the statute books laws that are as discriminatory against Canadian people as are these particular laws?


Mr. McCleave:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Surely.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does the hon. member
believe in practical rights for Canadians in the province of Quebec?


Frank Howard: Just as much as you do.


William Arnold Peters: If I answered that question, Mr. Chairman, I think we would be a mile off the subject.


Robert Jardine McCleave: You are off it anyway.


William Arnold Peters: Reference is being made to a debate that is continuing in this house on a different subject altogether.


An hon. Member:: You would be closer than you are now to the matter before the committee.


William Arnold Peters: What I would suggest is this. If the government wishes to introduce a divorce debate into the discussion of the immigration estimates, I have not found any place in this house where it properly belongs. This might be the place for they have so many other things in this department and they might have a divorce section, for all I know.
One of the problems the minister has not faced but with which they are faced is this. I know that she is a reasonable woman and I am quite sure she is doing her best in her department. However, she inherited an unholy mess and this mess had built up over many years and the civil service that were responsible for this mess have been doing the same things for many years. The newspapers indicate it may perhaps have been for 10 years. I expect it may go even further back than that. But the Liberals had a solution for this problem. When they found somebody who was very favourable to them they passed an order in council that admitted two or three people in this manner in several little ways in which they could go around the act and leave the act as bad as it was. I think the Chinese people in my area were sincere when they believed there were going to be amendments and that they were going to be major amendments that were going to be to their advantage because they were tired of playing around with this business of $3,000.
Mr. Chairman, while $3,000 is a great deal of money to me, I have in my community

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Chinese people who could afford close to $3 million if they wanted to spend it and who have the money to spend. The people that they would bring in would be no liability to Canada. One of them who has been brought in, incidentally, by one of the parties who are still trying to bring in relatives, is a civil servant here in Ottawa, and he is quite a high civil servant. He has been a credit to himself, to his people and his ancestors. It would appear to me that they believe they can stay within the law and that the new government will change the act and allow more leniency and a little better deal for them to bring in their relatives and their friends.
I have one particular Chinese constituent who wants to bring in his daughter-in-law and family. As I understand it, the son was killed and he now wants to bring the daughter-in-law into the family. This case has been going back and forth in the department for a number of years. I firmly believe that there is not much point in my writing to the minister and asking for any consideration in this case because, according to my understanding of it, it does not come under the terms of the act as we now operate. If these people were of any other nationality they could come into this country.
There are other people who are in almost as bad a position and these are West Indies people, particularly people from the British colonies in the West Indies. I have in my riding a very good friend who was obliged to change his religion, to all intents and purposes, in order to get into this country. It was impossible for him to come in with the religion he had so he changed it. He was Jewish previously, and now officially he is an Anglican and is still practising the faith of his fathers. He was obliged to tell the immigration department that he was an Anglican and that his wife was an Anglican or they could not get in here. He had tried t previously and failed but when he was willing to change his religion, then he got into the country. I would suggest that he is a good citizen with a good background. His father was one of the best known citizens of the particular island from which he came.
In the last list the department has put out I notice that no people are listed as coming from Jamaica and some of the other islands. I would not know under what they would be listed; maybe it would be "other origins". If so, there are not many of them anyway, because under all other origins in the first quarter of this year there were only 702 people and this may include people from the West Indies. I do not know.
It seems to me that we can stand a great number of people in Canada. I have noticed

in the papers where Canada is to allow more refugees into the country, and I would like to know from the department whether we asked these refugees to come in because we wanted them to fit into our plans, or did we want them to come in because our Secretary of State for External Affairs is a strong willed person and decided, when he heard the appeals made, that these people could be welcomed into Canada? Did he say, "We will bring them in here and I will talk the Prime Minister and others into my way of thinking"?
I rather think that these refugees came in through the grace of our external affairs minister rather than any other way. This is a good thing. I do not think it hurts to bring in this sort of refugee. I do not think it hurts when someone asks to bring in some relations from Austria or Hungary or one of those countries, relations who had t.b. and are now considered cured and can get four or five doctors to testify that they are cured and ask that some consideration be given to them. People are willing to put up a bond that the refugees will not become a responsibility. Why should not citizens who have been living here who are 30 or 40 years old and who have a mother of 60 or 70 not be allowed to bring her in instead of looking after her in a country where they have no connections and where there are increasing difficulties about sending money?
It would seem to me that a number of departments in this government need to be broken up, and this department is one. The department could be broken up into citizenship and immigration. There is some similarity between the two departments but I think we could concentrate after we get the immigrants here on whether they become good citizens or not and we could make better citizens out of them if we treated them better when we brought them here.
We have had an advertisement appearing in one of our papers which has made my people real mad. We have a large number of new Canadians in northern Ontario. Many of them came from Scotland and Ireland and they have to listen to this kind of junk. Whoever wrote this advertisement must have been hired for his literary ability, because they certainly did not hire him for his honesty. I would not say that anything in here is dishonest but I would say that the facts are vastly distorted. It is true that we do have new homes and beautiful suburbs, but this does not mean that somebody leaving a good job in Scotland could come to Canada and a week after find himself in a beautiful suburb living in a $15,000, a $20,000 or a $30,000 house, because he will not. He will

live in a shack like those in many communities and work on jobs which are only half as well paid as the job he had before, and his standard of living will be lower. This is true of hundreds of people in the mining field and as soon as some save some money they trot back home and wish they had never left home.
Mr. Chairman, among the companies who are mentioned in this particular advertisement are the Canadian Pacific Steamship Lines. Then there was another advertisement from Toronto which referred to the city travel agencies, a theatre company, the Cunard lines, the Canadian film board and the immigration service. I do not know whether all c these people paid for this three quarter page advertisement which appeared in the London Daily Mail, but this article says:	"This
article has been contributed by the Canadian government immigration service."
Mr. Chairman, if we paid for this let us at least be honest about what Canada is. We have a large unemployment situation here. We have many problems in housing, in the medical services and hospitalization which we have not been able to solve yet. Let us not paint this sort of picture which will mean that when people come here they will distrust and dislike us for having lured them here under false pretences. Let us be honest and tell the people over there what Canada really means, and if it means rotation, let us rotate.
It seems to me that we must do something to correct all these problems, and I would suggest a real shake-up in this department is necessary and that a good place to start it would be in this particular item dealing with immigration. I suggest that we should do what we did with the Chinese problem, which is an important one now because we do not know how bad it is. I am sure that people will still go on collecting $3,000 and bringing people in through the back door. Our laws are so bad that they make law-abiding and honest citizens break the laws in order to accomplish what they think is morally just and morally right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman in his concluding remarks repeated a statement that he made earlier, and if he had not been a relatively young and inexperienced member I would have challenged him the moment he made it. He said it was customary-and he implied he knew of many cases-for people to pay $3,000 to get other people into this country by the back door. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman, if he knew of any such cases, whether he did his duty as a citizen and informed the police and, if he did not, why not?
79951-0-300
9, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
This is a very serious charge that the hon. gentleman has made. He got up here and talked about officials who were here in the house and not allowed to speak for themselves. I have been in that kind of position in the past, sir. I have heard members of parliament get up and attack civil servants who could not reply, and I have absolutely no respect for members of parliament who use their parliamentary immunity to attack people who cannot reply. If these brave members who make these charges here, where they are not answerable in the courts, would make them to the police and produce the evidence, it would be a lot better for this country and for the public affairs of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had the responsibility for the last three years the former government was in office of the administration of this department, and every charge and suggestion of any kind of impropriety that was ever made was investigated and investigated immediately. Charges were laid in the courts in a few regrettable cases, quite a few in one particular instance, and there were others. Disciplinary action was taken by this department in a manner that was a credit to the public service of Canada, which is not filled with a lot of loafers and corrupt people as the hon. gentleman, in his loose way, suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is time we had an end to this kind of talk. If a citizen has not the courage to lay the information and all the information he has before the police, then if he knows of wrongdoing he should not come in here and hide under his immunity and attack people who cannot reply. I think as far as I am concerned I have nothing but contempt for that kind of conduct.
Now, sir, I had not really intended-


William Arnold Peters: Do you want an answer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can answer in his own time when I have finished; I did not interrupt him.


William Arnold Peters: You said you asked a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would like to answer he may.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this particular problem has concerned me for some time. I know of people who have been reported to have come in in this particular manner. 1 know of one particular family which we mentioned to the department but got no satisfaction from them. The department has always

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration said that they appreciate the information and will investigate it. I have no idea whether it was correct or not. My Chinese informants still tell me this is correct in this particular case.
I did go to the department a week or two before the arrests were made in Hong Kong and repeated these charges. I said I was advising my people not to wait for the amendments but to go ahead and pay their $3,000. I informed the department there and talked to the head of the department who was handling the matter, and it was only a week or so after that the arrests were made in Hong Kong and the charges began there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has answered himself and perhaps it is unnecessary for me to say anything further about this subject.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think so too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The point I really want to talk about particularly is a quarrel I have with the minister. It is one that I have had ever since the hon. lady made a statement in this chamber which I thought was a very foolish statement, which I said at the time I though was a very foolish statement and which in the light of experience has proved to be not only a very foolish thing but a very inhuman thing that has worked a great deal of unnecessary hardship on a number of people who would make perfectly good immigrants and citizens.
I believe the minister knows very well to what I am referring. I refer to the statement she made on August 23, 1958 as reported at page 4033 of Hansard. She said:
An increased number of non-immigrants have, after entry, applied for permanent residence in Canada. Many of them have obtained employment.
And so on. The hon. lady spoke at some length and I shall not take the time to read it in full. However, I do not want to paraphrase incorrectly and I will be glad to make any correction the hon. lady asks me to make because I do not want to be unfair about this. The minister indicated quite clearly that all those persons then in the country as visitors would be processed as though they had applied from outside the country but from that day onward, anyone who came here as a visitor would not be allowed to apply for landing in Canada but would have to go home and apply there. If the minister thinks I have not summarized it fairly I invite her to say so now.
In reply to the minister on that occasion I said:
I should now like to make a comment or two about the announcement made by the hon. lady. What her announcement amounted to when

stripped of all its verbiage is that instead of considering each application individually as has been the case in the past she is attempting to establish a cut-off date so as to consider all these cases at once and then apply all the full rigours of the law after March X.
That would be March 1, 1959. I continue:
Having dealt with those cases as they arose over a period of some three years, I can understand why any minister would seek to formalize the procedure and reduce the amount of agony connected with it, but I would not like the hon. lady to get away with the impression that this represents any liberalization of the policy of the department because it is in fact the precise reverse.
I then went on to say something that subsequently proved to be incorrect. I said that I did not think the minister would be successful in maintaining her cut-off date but so far the hon. lady-perhaps because of those Dutch characteristics to which my friend the hon. member for Cartier referred earlier- has stubbornly persisted in that policy except in a few cases I know about.
I may say that same matter came up at the time the estimates of the department were before the estimates committee in 1955. It was raised at that time by the hon. member for Oxford. I have the proceedings here. The date appears to have been February 28, 1955 and I refer to page 83 of the proceedings. At that time the following exchange occurred between the hon. member for Oxford and myself:


Mr. Nesbitt:: Along the same line, with respect to the procedure in the case of a proposed immigrant to Canada who has resided in Canada but as a non-immigrant; suppose he files an application and then is told that he must go back to his own country and make an application from there; could he not submit his application while in Canada on a temporary basis?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that it all depends on the circumstances; sometimes they are processed while he is still in Canada and sometimes they are told that they should go back and make an application.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Could the minister give us any indication or idea as to people who are resident in Canada on a non-immigrant basis, and when they are told they have to go back to their original country to make their application?
At that point Mr. Smith who was then the director of immigration gave the following answer:


Mr. Smith:: That is not done as a rule with the ones who are here, when we are satisfied that their intention when they came was not to circumvent any of our requirements. But we also advise them that their examination will take much longer in Canada than it would if they returned or if they returned to their own country of origin because of the procedures which have to be gone through, and that they can be dealt with much more rapidly on their return than would be the case if they remained here. However we do not insist on them going back if we are satisfied that the man is to be dealt with favourably here, and if he can comply with our requirements and regulations.

The discussion continued:


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: So it depends on the individual case?


John Smith: That is right.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Suppose a person comes from the United States. In all cases probably he would be able to be accepted rather than to have to go back to the United States and apply?


Mr. Smih:: Yes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Whereas a person who comes from Italy or France might even have to go back to Italy or France to get through more quickly?
I replied to that question and this is the reply I wish particularly to draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might say a word about my own experience as minister in this matter. It is not very conclusive,-
I might say at that time I had been minister for only six or seven months. I continue:
-but I think that there is a disposition on the part of the departmental officers, when someone has come in here as a non-immigrant with what looks pretty clearly like the deliberate intention of beating the regulations, to say, "Well, you can't do this; you have to go back and take your chances like the other people in the country you came from." But when someone comes genuinely as a visitor, likes this country and wants to stay, and looks like a person who in all probability might satisfy the regulations if he were processed, our disposition is not to suggest their return, I say that this is just the impression that I have obtained as minister from having dealt with cases of that kind. That is the kind of case that comes to me most often.
I believe the attitude I took at that time was the right and proper attitude to be taken. I know it is much easier administratively to say "no" to all these cases, to say to every visitor who comes to Canada, "You came here as a visitor; we do not know whether or not you are qualified as an immigrant; go back and put yourself on an equal basis with someone who has never been here." But this often involves months of time, maybe more than a year. It involves the disruption of people's lives and, in many cases, it involves fairly great expense. I have never been able to see how any member of the public who, after all, we represent here and whose servants we are or ought to be, could ever understand why we would say to people concerning whom there may be reasonable grounds for thinking they are perfectly qualified to be landed as immigrants, "You have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to go back where you came from and make your application in that country," instead of processing the applications here.
I know from the experience I have had and from the very kind of experience that the hon. lady has had this afternoon that every so often you get a difficult case that you feel you should turn down and that you have a duty imposed by this parliament to turn down. In the final analysis it is the duty 79951-0-300i
9, 1960	4757
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of the minister imposed by a statute of this parliament to make decisions of that kind.
I had no hand in drafting that act although I had three years of administering it. I do not see how else the matter can be handled. I wish I could see some other way. I suppose it would be possible to establish or erect some kind of administrative tribunal to deal with these things. I have thought a great deal about that. If that were done I hope it would never be done on a basis that would allow an appeal to the minister. I hope that if an administrative tribunal were established -and that would have to be done by parliament itself, it could not be done by any regulations under the existing law because the existing law says the minister must decide; the courts have ruled in the Brent case that in the final analysis no one but the minister can decide-there would be no appeal to the minister and therefore, as I say, if we want to change it to establish an administrative tribunal it would have to be done by act of parliament.
I think very serious consideration should be given to all the implications of that, but I know what would happen. I know it would be said at once that the people appearing before this tribunal had not been properly treated and there would be appeals to the minister to reverse the tribunal. I would hope that we would decide either that there is going to be a tribunal which will have the final say or leave the matter with the minister. That, as I say, is something that cannot be settled here and now.
But I do appeal to the minister very strongly to reverse that decision which she made, and that is all it was. There was no order in council; it was just a decision by the minister and by the department. I ask her to go back to the system of considering here in Canada the cases of visitors on their merits. Nothing else makes any kind of sense to ordinary people.
I should like to say at the same time that I do not think there is a disposition in the case of persons who do not technically qualify under the law and the regulations as they stand at the present time to take a somewhat restrictive view. Of course, the governor in council could admit such cases on the recommendation of the minister. But there is a disposition now in certain cases to be unnecessarily rigid. One hon. member who spoke this afternoon-it may have been the hon. member for Cartier or the hon. member for Vancouver Centre-said something about half-sisters. Half-sisters are not unique creatures, but they are not in the common, ordinary run. There are not so many of them and there have been a few cases where it
4758	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration seems to me that by making a liberal interpretation of policy no one would have been harmed. It may be that the law makes it impossible for the department to admit such cases, but it would not be impossible for the governor in council to make one of these exceptional rulings such as I think ought to be made from time to time.
This brings up what I know from experience to be one of the most difficult problems in the administration of the Immigration Act. I read the proceedings of the committee when the act was revised in 1951 or 1952 before I was a member of parliament. I read them with great care. I read the debates in the house, and I know that there are different ways of administering immigration. I can see only three possible ways of administering immigration. One way-the easiest way- would be to let anybody come here who wanted to come, without demanding any kind of qualifications whatsoever. I would give any government that attempted to introduce a policy of that kind just about as much time as it takes me to snap my fingers to stay in office. I do not believe there is any hon. member who would have the foolhardiness to suggest such a policy in this house, because we all know it would never be acceptable to the Canadian people. What I am about to say is, no doubt, not a very wise thing to say, politically, and I will no doubt be attacked as an old-fashioned reactionary for saying it. But there is no doubt that a great many people use arguments about immigration as though that should be the policy. They have not, however, got the courage to say it should be the policy. They talk loosely about discrimination of one kind and another, but if you put it right to them and say: are you in favour of an open-door policy, they would, of course, shy away from it.
In the absence of an open-door policy it is, of course, necessary to have some criteria of selection. That is all there is in the regulations which, as the hon. member for Timiskaming has correctly pointed out, are the same as they were when I was in office. Perhaps I would not defend them if they were not. They are the same as they were, and a tremendous amount of thought was given to them. I do not think they are perfect. But what was really sought was to make them practical so that they could deal with all the ordinary cases and all the ordinary problems one encountered.
We must remember this: the moment you have any criteria of selection you have to rely on human beings to do the selecting and you will always get these people who will refer to officials as little tyrants, as the Prime


Minister used to do when he was sitting over here. I notice the right hon. gentleman does not say that any more. Of course, he has much more important things to think of now.
The plain fact is that if you have any criteria of selection at all you must have human beings to perform that function, and they are going to make mistakes. There is, of course, one other way and that is the United States system of the establishment of quotas. I do not know on what basis the Canadian people would ever agree to the establishment of quotas. I think we would have a very hard time indeed getting agreement in this country on a quota system and on what quota should be given to whom. No one who has ever had any responsibility for the administration of immigration since immigration began as a government service in this country has ever attempted it.
I really think there are times when we ought to look at the fundamentals of these things and see what we are really talking about. I believe that on balance the system we now have of making it almost open for those people who are most like ourselves to enter this country is probably the best system we could adopt at the present time. When I say "people who are most like ourselves" I do not mean that we are superior, or any nonsense of that sort. I say that because I believe that such people can adapt themselves to the country faster. For one thing, they do not have to learn the language. That is not saying that immigrants of this sort are superior to others. It is just that it is easier for them to integrate.
Immigration costs the receiving countries something, too. I have been very much impressed by some hon. gentlemen who are inclined sometimes to talk out of both sides of their mouths on this question. They talk about unemployment and the desirability of keeping people out, then they complain bitterly because some people are kept out. You have to make up your mind one way or the other. My own view is that in times when there is considerable unemployment and where people cannot get jobs easily we should not have open placement immigration at all. By that, I mean the immigration of people who have no connection with Canada.
I also am an unrepentant believer in the system of sponsorship which I think has served Canada exceedingly well since it was adopted in 1947 as a principle of immigration. I do not care what race a man comes from; a person who comes here with a brother or a father or a son or a cousin living in Canada to help him over the first hard period is going to find it easier to get along, and will

make a contribution to this country faster than someone who knows nobody here and is a complete stranger.
If instead of trying to find reasons for complaint in regard to the present regulations we approached them from the viewpoint of understanding why they were designed in the way they are, it would be found, I think, that what they seek to do is to make it as easy as possible for the close relatives of all those who live in this country to come here and join them.
I referred earlier today and I want to refer again to the fact that we had the liberality in this country-I am not claiming credit for this particularly for the government to which I belonged because it was before I belonged to it anyway and it would not have been done if the people of Canada had not been willing to accept it-to go on admitting the relatives of our Chinese Canadian citizens. I am proud of the fact that we did, that we did not allow the kind of passions which in an earlier period sometimes disfigured these matters to have sway, that, all during the period of the Korean war we admitted these Chinese immigrants with relatives here who were citizens. No other country in the world did that kind of thing. We are told that there was discrimination and so on; yes, there was discrimination, but I do not think it was discrimination in a bad sense. Because we had a good loyal population of Chinese Canadians it was favourable discrimination to say that we could safely admit their close relatives, and I think the proof of that pudding has been in the eating.
With respect to the 23,000 who have come, notwithstanding what anybody may say I do not believe that half of them came here illegally, and unless I see the evidence in black and white in each individual case and examine it I will not believe it at all. I am certainly not going to believe it on any kind of hearsay. I think it is most unfortunate. I do not believe that $44 million or $33 million was paid to bring these people here. I think stories like that are just utter and unadulterated rubbish and anybody who knows how hard it is to raise $44 million ought to know that.
I said in 1955 and again in 1956 that I was sure, because of the inherent difficulties in this matter, that nobody can remove and that no system could remove, that some people who were not relatives at all would be able to get through the net and that there would be some cases of fraud. I have felt all along that there were, and I do not care how many categories you have or what categories you have, there would still be some. When there is the kind of pressure that there is in this particular situation there will be
9, 1960	4759
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration a temptation to commit fraud. But before we start tossing around loose charges about these matters it does seem to me that we should know the facts and really have the information about them.
I should also like to say something else about the administration of the Immigration Act that I said before and that the hon. lady has not received very well when I have said it before. She received it exceptionally badly the last time I said it. I hope she will refrain from the temptation tonight to give the reply which she gave last year and the year before, and in order to discourage her from doing so I am going to give it first. It is true she can find in the files that when I was minister I did order some people deported who had children who were Canadian citizens. There is no doubt that some of these people either left voluntarily or were deported. 1 am ashamed of that, so there is no need for the hon. lady to say anything about it. I have said that publicly in the house before and I say it again. It was a mistake I made, and I think we should make it abundantly clear, no matter where we sit in the house that regardless of what their record is we do not intend to deport the parents of infant Canadian citizens.
What are we doing when we do that? We are putting on another country the responsibility for infant citizens of this country who were born here and who will never lose their citizenship unless they do so as a voluntary act, because no Canadian born citizen can lose his citizenship except by accepting the citizenship of another country. What we are doing is sending into exile our own citizens or separating them from their parents and thereby probably making them public charges. In a country like Canada with its wealth and its need for people, if we occasionally get some people who are technically deportable, or even bad people, and who happen to be the parents of Canadian citizens I believe we should not deport them when these Canadian citizens are infants and have to be cared for by someone. I should like to see the law changed so that this could not be done. But the law does not need to be changed. All the hon. lady needs to do is to change her mind or, if it is not her mind, to change the minds of her colleagues in order to have this done.
There is one other thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman, and I can see that you are looking at the clock. I must say I am exceedingly disappointed at the entirely unresponsive attitude of the Prime Minister-I do not blame the hon. lady for this but rather put the blame where it belongs, on the Prime Minister-to the appeal of the Canadian
4760	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration welfare council and all sorts of Canadians all over the country who want to make a voluntary contribution to world refugee year. The Canadian welfare council made certain suggestions to the Prime Minister months ago, and I think I have asked him on an average of every 10 days when the government is going to reach a decision about this matter. On each occasion I have received the usual kind of answer that, unhappily, we get from the Prime Minister about matters of public policy most of the time.
The fact of the matter is that as long as we impose upon private sponsors of refugees an indefinite responsibility for the health and welfare care of these refugees we virtually make it impossible for them to be sponsored. While we have made great professions of our desire to do something about this matter, we have carefully kept the regulations in such a state that they really are a practical prohibition to action except in the case of people who either are very wealthy or very careless about their obligations.
The welfare council suggested that the government should get in touch with the provinces and reach some agreement. I personally do not think that was the best approach that could have been made. I think the right approach was the approach that I suggested to the Minister of Finance and that he promised to pass on to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think it would not be too much for the government of Canada to say in the case of sponsored refugees that, after a year or two years, the government would undertake the residual responsibility for health and welfare care. It would not amount to very much. If sponsors have to do it for a year or two years they are not going to assume terrible responsibilities, and it does seem to me that this would break the log jam in this whole business. We still have three weeks before the end of world refugee year and I appeal once more to the government to take a constructive attitude about this matter or at least to make up its mind and give a definite answer.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on two scores; first, for rising so ably to the defence of my staff and thereby saving me the trouble of doing so and, second, for having given some very constructive and frank comments on administration. I must say that in some cases I do not agree with him but that is to be expected. If I may answer his last remarks first, I should like to tell him that so far as the sponsorship of refugees is concerned we


believe that the program is coming along very well. As the Prime Minister said, we do not intend to stop it at the end of world refugee year. He will be interested to know that, we have had about 80 applications for private sponsorship which have been developed, and several of these people are already in Canada. This comprises somewhere around 150 persons. The volume of inquiries has been very heavy, and in most cases the sponsors are groups of people.
I indicated earlier, I think, in response to a question asked by the hon. member for Essex East, that a meeting was arranged with the minister of health for Ontario, Dr. Dymond, to discuss the detailed implications of the statement made by Premier Frost on April 12 last respecting the Ontario government's part in assistance to refugees. I am glad to say that fas a result of the discussions which were held with Dr. Dymond on May 30 last we have now received a communication in which Dr. Dymond states, on behalf of the Ontario government, and I quote:
-while the province cannot undertake responsibility for any costs involved in the transportation of immigrant refugees, we will be prepared to assume the normally accepted welfare costs after the immigrant refugees have been in our province for six months.
What this means is that while the provincial authorities of Ontario cannot, for understandable reasons, accept responsibility for transportation costs, or for assistance given to an immigrant refugee during the first six months of his residence in Ontario, they have undertaken to provide to such immigrant refugees at the end of six months the normal assistance services available to ordinary residents of the province. Transportation arrangements, therefore, together with any assistance that may be necessary to an immigrant refugee during the first six months of his stay in Ontario will continue, in sponsored cases, to be the responsibility of the individual, group or agency providing sponsorship.
I think it will be recognized that the position taken by the province of Ontario in regard to this matter will be very helpful to those individuals or groups who are considering the possible sponsorship of immigrant refugee cases. I am hopeful that as a result of the initiative taken in this matter by Ontario other provinces will follow suit, and I am sure that this will greatly facilitate the possibilities of moving a larger number of immigrant refugees to Canada under suitable sponsorship arrangements than might otherwise have been possible.
This was action which we took as a result of the representations made by the Canadian

welfare council and others. I think it will work out very well. We are certainly going to give it a try, in any event.
The hon. member had something to say with reference to the deportation of the parents of Canadian born babies. I do not intend to get into any detailed argument. I feel strongly that it is a wrong principle to permit these people to stay here simply because a child is born in Canada. I should like to quote a portion of the judgment rendered in one case by the superior court of Quebec. I should like to quote three paragraphs which I feel set out rather well the thinking of the court at that time with which, I must say, I agree.
It is not true that the deportation of her parents will deprive this child of her Canadian citizenship. Not only is it not against "public order, good morals and Christian charity" that she should follow her parents in the country of which her parents and herself are citizens, but it would be indeed against "public order, good morals and Christian charity" that her parents abstain from taking her with them. In this respect, the fate of this child will be no better nor worse than that of a child bom of Canadian parents in a country where, by reason of his having been born there, he is entitled to citizenship of that country, nor than that of a Canadian child of Canadian parents who decide to emigrate from Canada.
By taking the child with them, her parents would not be taking her into exile as she would still be living in a country of which she is a citizen having been born of Haitian citizens.
The hon. member will recognize the case.
To accept this extraordinary and astounding argument of petitioners in support of their objection to deportation of themselves would amount to admitting that the birth of a child to persons not being citizens of this country but residing here temporarily entitles ipso facto the parents to become Canadan citizens, a principle which manifestly would be contrary to the spirit, purposes and provisions of our law.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I could not improve upon that in any way, and I will leave it at that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the hon. lady can have it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: All right. There were several matters raised in the course of the debate this afternoon. I think I might comment on a few of them at this time. The hon. member for Cartier had quite a bit to say about the advertising which was done in the United Kingdom and asked, I think, why it was not done in some other countries.


Leon David Crestohl: He asked whether it was done in other countries.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The simple answer to that is that in most of the European countries we are not permitted to advertise. Most of the * European countries do not permit us to do any real promotional advertising for immigration. If the hon. member is interested in
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration any one country I will try to tell him what the situation is. It just happens that the United Kingdom is one place where we can and do advertise. I should say that the advertisements which have been quoted here today have been, in the main, old ones. They have not been recent. There has been no advertising in the last few months. The advertisements which were quoted by one hon. member were those of a transportation company, not ours.
It is true that a few months ago there would be a few classifications of employment for which there was a demand in Canada listed in these advertisements. These classifications are taken from the experiences of our offices across Canada after consultation with officials of the national employment service. Having said that, I think I should go further and say that it is true that there might be unemployment in a given line of work in one part of the country and still be vacancies in that particular line of work in another part of the country. People are not too likely to tear up roots. They are naturally optimistic and hope that in a few months things will be better. They tend to stay where they are, particularly if they own their own homes and have families. They are reluctant to move thousands of miles away from the cities in which they reside. In that respect it is quite possible that we have openings for persons in a given line of employment in one of the eastern Ontario cities, whereas in the same line of work there will be people unemployed in a western city. That is, broadly, the explanation.
I should like to reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East in this regard and tell him that we are not sending open placement immigrants to British Columbia except in these specific cases; in the professional classes; butchers and meatcutters, they tell me there is a limited demand for them in British Columbia; bakers, pastry cooks and cooks, and there is a limited demand for them. There is a good demand for domestics, nurses' aides and waiters. These are the only ones that are being directed to British Columbia. I thought the hon. member might be interested in that information.
I should also tell the hon. member for Cartier, with regard to his inquiry about deportations to Iraq, that there have been no deportations to Iraq in the last three years. I do not know whether he is aware of that.


Leon David Crestohl: I am pleased to hear that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think probably the information upon which he based his argument was older than three years. With regard to deportations in general, may I say for the information of several hon. members of the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration committee who have mentioned this matter that in the last three years these deportations have numbered 150 per year less than they did in the preceding three years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. lady permit a question?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: She knows, as do I, that "deportations" is a loose word. Are these deportations of landed immigrants, deportations of visitors or all deportations?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This particular figure had to do with all deportations. However, if the hon. member would like to have the figures with respect ot others, I can give them to him. In the last three years the deportations executed were 1,924. No, I am sorry; the information I gave is wrong. The figure 150 has to do with just those who were in the country, not border exclusions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady knows there are two kinds of so-called deportations. When the act is changed I hope she will take note of them and use a different word.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Exclusions, you mean? *


John Whitney Pickersgill: I feel that deportation should be reserved only for immigrants who have been landed and where they have, of course, a legal process to go through. That is what I was really interested in.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The deportations that were executed have to do with people who were in the country. I do not know whether we have those separated into immigrants and non-immigrants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not really matter.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: However, they were not border exclusions. In that case there were 1,924 in the last three years and in the years preceding there were 2,370, which is an average of 150 per year less in the recent period.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of taking part in this debate but, because of certain remarks made by prominent members of the opposition, I am forced to set the facts in their true light about the stand taken by Quebec Conservative members concerning immigration in Canada.
The Liberal opposition seizes every opportunity, and without reason, to drag into this house the debate that now is being waged in the Quebec political arena with regard to the provincial elections. Time and again, they like to refer to some press item condemning the provincial government and

seeking to connect the views of the provincial government with those of the federal government, and at the same time to confuse both political parties, the Conservative in Ottawa and the Union Nationale in Quebec, so that every time there is an opportunity of condemning one of them, it is also possible to trip the other one and give it a stab in the back.
I see no better illustration of this than the remarks which the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) made a few moments ago, when the hon. member, resorting to a facile hustings technique embarked upon a declamatory speech in which he challenged one of his fellow members to answer a series of questions which I am sorry not to have entirely grasped, because they were not only unintelligible, but unintelligent.
Mr. Chairman, I am certain that not a single hon. member and not a single Canadian, whether in the province of Quebec or in the whole of Canada, will dare to oppose sensible immigration. We, the Conservatives from the province of Quebec are not opposed -and I do think this is also the case of our Liberal friends opposite-to moderate immigration to the extent that Canada is able to supply those immigrants with sufficient work to make a living.
Now, I ask the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont whether, after closing his remarks, he listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), who, without making any statement contrary to what our hon. friend from Maisonneuve-Rosemont said, nevertheless put things in their true light, with that frankness which I admit he has, at least in respect of his speech tonight. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate frankly expressed his views on certain issues. He did not try to have it both ways, as did the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont who followed the lead given for many years by the federal Liberal party, stating one thing in Quebec and the opposite in the other provinces.
Mr. Chairman, is there a single Canadian inside or outside this house who would deny that immigrants are generally able to become excellent Canadians, when they are not attracted under false pretences, such as telling them that some well-paid job is waiting for them, whereas, actually, they have to get along on their own? Unfortunately, such was the stupid attitude of the Liberal government of which the dear friend of the hon.

member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), Hon. Jean Lesage, was a member when the Liberals were in power.
Mr. Chairman, I shall ask again: Is there in 9 this house a single Liberal member who would deny the two propositions I advanced a few moments ago, that is, are you, the Liberals, opposed to moderate immigration as far as Canada is in a position to offer new Canadians the jobs that will enable them to earn their living? Can you Liberals deny that immigrants are generally able to become very good Canadians, as long as they are not attracted to this country under false pretenses, with the understanding that they will be gainfully employed? I do not think I will ever hear a single Liberal member deny the statement made earlier by the member for Bonavista-Twillingate and even the conclusions reached by the member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont before closing his speech.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve-Rosemont had a good deal to say about an election advertisement run by the Union Nationale in a certain newspaper. Well, the advertisement referred to contains word for word the two proposals which I am now challenging Liberal members to deny. I have read the advertisement and I think I may quote it for the information of the house, since the member for Laurier read part of a document, which he had no right to do unless the document was tabled or unless he read the whole document-which he did not do, the Liberals being accustomed to half-truths or half-falsehoods, which in their case is the very same thing.
The advertisement reads as follows:
A question calling for an answer.
The ''old hands" of the Ottawa Liberal centralizing school are coming to talk to us about unemployment in Quebec.
They do not seem to realize that they themselves are responsible in the first place for the great difficulties we have been having for several years in the province of Quebec, i.e.: recovery of our taxation rights, heavy taxation, unemployment, etc.
Why did you bring 1,533,000 immigrants into Canada in the space of 10 years?
That is the question put by that advertisement. Explanations are being asked of the Liberal government. That is all the advertisement does. But, what the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont failed to say is that the advertisement does not stop there, and he did it deliberately, because it goes on as follows:
We are not opposed to moderate immigration to the extent that Canada is able to provide new Canadians with the jobs they need to earn their
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration living. Immigrants are generally able to become excellent Canadians as long as they are not attracted under false pretenses leading them to believe that wellipaid jobs are waiting for them.
When Mr. Lesage had a say in the administration of this country, he left the door wide open to excessive immigration, whose unfortunate effects are now being felt, not only in the province of Quebec but in the nine other provinces of Canada.
It is that same Mr. Lesage who, today, is complaining about Quebec unemployment of which he, together with his friends, is responsible in the first instance.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, by dint of seeing Liberals climb on the provincial election bandwagon, it seems that, in spite of myself, I am doing the same thing.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps what I am going to say now is not new. It is a statement which has been made several times in the province of Quebec, but I feel it is necessary to repeat it here, to the whole nation in this parliament of Canada. It is time Liberals ceased, for election purposes, to exploit all kinds of statements undermining the attitude, not only of a political party in the province of Quebec, but of all French-speaking Canadians, as the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont was doing a moment ago. There is no province in Canada-and I am proud to repeat it here, Mr. Chairman-there is no province in Canada that gives fairer treatment to its minorities, be they immigrants or its Englishspeaking population. It is time the Liberals stopped running down the attitude of the people of Quebec, both with regard to immigration and with regard to relations between the various ethnic groups in the province of Quebec.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville allow me a question?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Certainly.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Does the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville regard as fair and reasonable, in the light of present economic circumstances, the invitation a few weeks ago in London by the Prime Minister, when he said we were now in a position to absorb tens of thousands of immigrants?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not get the last part of the question, because someone was talking to me.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, my question to the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville is as follows. Does the hon. member feel, in
4764	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration view of the present economic position, and in view of the present unemployment situation in Canada, that the statement made by the Prime Minister in London a few weeks ago, inviting tens of thousands of immigrants to Canada, was a reasonable invitation in Canada's present economic context?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately have not read the advertisement or alleged invitation referred to by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, but I know that the Prime Minister of Canada is familiar enough with the economic situation to accept responsibility for any statements he may make. I would therefore suggest to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont that, before attempting to interpret the words of the Prime Minister, he might first explain what he means by "economic context"?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me another question?
Does the hon. member for Chambly-Rou-ville approve of the advertisement published in the Belfast Telegraph in the latter part of December 1959, in which the Department of Citizenship and Immigration invited immigrants to Canada, listing 75 different trades, at a time when Canadian citizens could not find employment in those trades?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, in the first place I have not read the advertisement, and therefore I am not in a position to discuss it, particularly in view of the fact that I feel suspicious of any interpretation placed upon it by the Liberal opposition. I shall therefore refrain from any comment until such time as I have had the opportunity of reading the advertisement.
However, I would advise the member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont not to be too harsh on the official who may have had this advertisement published; he would risk incurring the wrath of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I have a third question to ask.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think I can allow this exchange to go on.


Mr. Robichaud:: He could not reply anyway.


Mr. Habel:: He did not answer a single question.


Mr. O'Hurley:: It is not easy to answer questions by Liberal members.
(Text):


John Smith: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to hold up this debate unduly but


there are one or two matters pertaining to sponsored immigration with which I should like to deal very briefly at this time. However, before I proceed I should like to say, in fairness to the minister and her staff that over the years I have had excellent co-operation from both the minister and her staff in Ottawa and also her staff at Niagara Falls, Ontario, which is the port of entry for the Niagara peninsula.
The matter with which I wish to deal, as I say, is sponsored immigration. Under the regulations at the present time a person who is a Canadian can bring to this country from, say, Poland a brother or a sister and his or her family. But in some cases where there is one or more members in the family over 18 years of age you run into a serious problem because it appears that under the regulations there is no specific provision to sponsor such a person.
I have had one or two cases of that kind. I might say that in one case when the man who was making the application in Niagara Falls was told that one member of the family, a girl just over 18, could not come in, he dropped the application. In another case the application went through, the family came here and a daughter was left in Poland hoping that after a while she would be able to come.
I think this is a very serious problem and I would suggest that where family units are being sponsored to come to this country the age limit for children should be raised from 18 years of age to 21 years of age; that is, providing they are not married. I think this is a matter which I brought to the attention of the minister before, and she was very gracious about it but said that under the regulations there were no provisions to process a case of that kind.
There is also the matter of nieces and nephews. There is no great problem about bringing them into this country from countries like Poland if they are less than 18 years of age; but as soon as they go over the 18 years of age limit you are again faced with the same problem, that there are no provisions in that country to process them. Sometimes you are able to get them through after a great deal of correspondence. Generally speaking, after 18 years of age it is difficult if not impossible to bring them to Canada.
Regarding the bringing to Canada of the children of Chinese families I have often thought that the regulations are a little harsh. They demand the submission of full identification, birth certificates, photographs and things of that nature which are often difficult to obtain. In cases of that sort where a party is bringing young Chinese people to this country the regulations should be

relaxed a little if the sponsoring party is sound financially and a good citizen to make it easier to bring the young people here and unite the families and make them happy.
There are many new Canadians in the Niagara peninsula. In spite of the disappointments experienced in some cases there are hundreds of happily re-united families whose re-union has been made possible through the department. I sincerely appreciate what has been done and thank the minister on their behalf.
I urge the minister and the department to take a second look at the possibility of changing the regulations concerning sponsored immigration where the children are over 18 and concerning the bringing to Canada of nieces and nephews over age 18. I suggest that age 21 should be considered.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am labouring under difficulties in rising to speak at this time. First, it is five minutes to ten o'clock. Second, I am somewhat timid about hurting a lady's feelings. Third, I have been married for many years, have four daughters and have never yet won an argument with a woman. I trust I will not repeat what has been said although I wish to support and emphasize some comments that have been made.
I am pleased that Dr. Davidson has been appointed deputy minister of the department. Many people wrote me about this. Rather than to proliferate with excessive language it would be simpler for me to quote from an article by Tempus in the June 10 issue of the Financial Times:
The long-delayed shakeup in the department of immigration here is taking place: or has taken place. Laval Fortier, for 10 years the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, has been moved to the unemployment insurance commission, while Dr. George Davidson, B.S., M.A., Ph.D., moves, after a decade in health and welfare as deputy, to the new post of deputy minister of citizenship and immigration. The Bass river blue-nose-
A nice phrase. I continue:
-is deemed a suitable man for the new policy. After all the trouble Mrs. Ellen Fairclough was having in immigration, heads had to roll: at least one did; not hers.
I do not often agree with Tempus but that is well stated and I believe reflects the view of many Canadians.
I recognize that this department faces problems different from those faced by other departments, problems concerning human beings and problems at times almost intangible through circumstances that arise. Many people have written or spoken to me about immigration problems including veterans, my constituents, members of the
Business of the House
Canadian Legion, officials and members of trade unions and Canadians of Chinese origin residing in my constituency. The latter tell me that regardless of the fact they are represented by one of their own racial origin they prefer to bring their problems to me. I appreciate their point of view very much. They recntly wrote me about their opinion on matters to which I will refer later.
I appreciate the trying tasks the department has to undertake and the difficulties experienced by the staff and officials in coping with regulations that are difficult to administer and with problems arising from the present unplanned immigration policy.
Members of the Canadian Legion and other organizations have asked me to inquire of the minister if all the officials and staff of her department employed since 1945 are entitled to the veterans preference.
I have been ambling along preparatory to coming to the core of my remarks but I see it is thirty seconds to ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker may I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and ask if the house leader could tell us what we will be doing next week?


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will commence with the estimates of the Department of Transport. If concluded, we have available the estimates of the Post Office Department.
The tentative program for next week is as follows. For Monday and Tuesday there are eight items on the order paper of a legislative nature which will be taken in this order:
1.	The second reading of Bill No. C-74 referring to the Customs Tariff.
2.	Bill No. C-73 referring to the Excise Tax Act.
3.	Bill No. C-65 referring to the Estate Tax Act.
4.	Bill No. C-69 referring to the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system.
5.	Bill No. C-68 referring to the Income Tax Act.
6.	Bill No. C-64, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
7.	Bill No. S-32, to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river near the town of La Salle.
8.	A motion in the name of the Minister of National Revenue to set up a select committee on the subject of broadcasting. That would be called on Tuesday.
For the balance of the week-Wednesday, Thursday and Friday-we will go into committee of supply to consider the estimates in

Business of the House
the following order, subject to adjustment if necessary: the continuation of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, post office, mines and technical surveys, fisheries, veterans affairs, health and welfare. All those are ready. Veterans affairs and health and welfare estimates have both gone to committees and have been carefully studied. The Department of Transport, if not finished tomorrow, will be considered again on Friday of next week.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 10, 1960