[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on standing orders-Mr. MacLean.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I see by Votes and Proceedings, Nos. 58 and 59, that two petitions from hundreds of electors of Temiscouata county have been turned down because they had not been drawn in proper form, "and therefore should not be received." We go by standing order 68 which says:
A petition to the house may be presented by a member at any time during the sitting of the house by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
These petitions were sent to the house and were tabled in the house. At the time of presentation there was no debate. They were endorsed by the member. The only difficulty is that they were addressed to Mr. Speaker and to members of the House of Commons instead of to the Honourable the House of Commons in parliament assembled. That is the first point. On this first point, the fact is that those petitions which have been tabled could not have been mentioned in -Hansard if the House of Commons had not been assembled. It is a matter of using or not using sacramental words. The wish of the electors of my county has been conveyed to you, sir, and to my hon. colleagues by that petition.
Mr. IRVINE:: To whom is the petition addressed?


Mr. POULIOT:: It is addressed to Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the House of

Commons. There were three words missing- "in parliament assembled." The House of Commons was in fact assembled, because if the House of Commons had not been assembled the petition could not have been tabled. Then there should be the words "The petition of the undersigned ... humbly shew-eth"; these are not on the petition. I regret that, but I wonder if those words are indispensable. Then the citation says: "Follows the subject matter on the petition, in the third person through, and commencing each paragraph with the word 'That'." It was not necessary to have several paragraphs; my electors are not strong on red tape and they cut it short. They said in very clear and plain language what they wanted done. Then there is the prayer. The prayer is the expression of the wish.


William Irvine: What was the prayer? That is important.


Jean-François Pouliot: The prayer is that they did not want to be taken away from Temiscouata county as it is now. That was the prayer, and it was set out in fair language. There is some confusion about the prayer-and I am speaking about the lay prayer, not the religious prayer. Then there is the conclusion, which we very often see in petitions, "And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray." That is not in there. Those are the sacramental words that are not in this petition. Everything else but that is in accordance with the spirit of parliamentary practice and tradition; everything else required by the standing order is complied with by the petition. Therefore, sir, if the house is generous enough to give unanimous consent, I would move that this petition be referred to the redistribution committee.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Mr. Speaker, I think the house ought to give unanimous consent to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). We should not be governed so much by the form as by the substance of a petition such as this. When the common people of Canada decide that they want to petition the House of Commons, we should place as few obstacles as possible in the way of their getting their views tabled in the house. I suggest that we waive any technicalities in this matter and allow the petition presented by the hon. member for Temiscouata to be tabled as he suggests.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I point out to the house that I have already refused some petitions because they were not prepared in accordance with the rules of the house. I should not like to put before the house the motion to

Inquiries oj the Ministry
accept the petition presented by the hon. member for Temiscouata before having had the opportunity of seeing it. I have noted the remarks made by the hon. member, and he may be assured that due consideration will be given to them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.



REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: May I present to the House the petition, addressed to the House of Commons in parliament assembled, of a number of Canadians and British subjects residing in Yukon Territory, praying that Mackenzie district be not included with the electoral district of Yukon; and they give their reasons. This petition is in order.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: On April 16. as reported at page 2096 of Hansard, I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I asked if the minister could inform the house what stage the Canadian government's plans had reached for the setting up of a Canadian commission of what is popularly known as UNESCO. Is the minister now prepared to answer that question?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): The Canadian government's plans with respect to the setting up of a Canadian commission of UNESCO have not yet been definitely agreed upon. As I informed the hon. member on April 16. on a proper occasion I shall be glad to discuss everything that has been investigated and considered in that regard, but I could not do it in a short answer to a question on the orders of the day.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: May we expect an early decision and statement?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, it is a matter of considerable importance, and the setting up of this commission is something which will have to be done in a form that it will not be easy to change afterward. There will be a large number of bodies interested in educational, scientific and cultural matters who will be concerned; and it will not be easy, after the plan has been announced and the commission has been set up, to modify its composition. We therefore feel that we should take considerable care and be sure that we are getting it in the form in which it will be convenient to have it permanently established.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Irvine: I
have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell the 'house if legislation will be introduced this session to extend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to other parts of Canada, and in particular to British Columbia?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: There is nothing I can add to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). The question is under consideration; and just as soon as it has been decided I shall make a report to the house.



SUGAR BEETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I desire to ask three questions of the Minister of Finance. I have not given him notice of these, so perhaps they will have to remain as notices of motion.
1.	Has the minister investigated to find out how many acres of beet contracts the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company had signed up by the close of May 1?
2.	Will the minister investigate before Monday, May 5, at three o'clock and report to the house on Monday afternoon?


James Horace King: Order. As the hon. member knows, it is not in order for him to ask oral questions on matters which are not urgent. I would suggest to him that as there is no urgency in this matter, he should put his questions on the order paper.


John Horne Blackmore: It is impossible to hear what Your Honour said, but may I put the third question?


James Horace King: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: May I point out to Your Honour that 50 million pounds of sugar are involved for Canada in 1947, and the urgency is that if these beet contracts are not signed up immediately, it will be too late.
Inquiries oj the Ministry


James Horace King: Order. I would again suggest to the hon. member that he put his questions on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. It is a follow-up to the one I asked him yesterday. Has his department any further report regarding the Nova Scotians his department moved to Brantford? He stated yesterday he might have some information today.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I have no report as yet, but if I get it tomorrow morning and my hon. friend is in the city, I will let him know.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has an answer to my question of yesterday with respect to the parliaments of the various commonwealth countries and article 41 of the united nations charter?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	We have information with respect to two of the parliaments, and yesterday afternoon we cabled to secure the information from the other commonwealth governments, but as yet have not received replies. I inquired just before I came into the house at three o'clock, and the replies have not yet been received. As soon as they are received I shall communicate the information to the house.



CANNED LOBSTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens):
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. I was unable to give him notice of the question, or give notice to you, Mr. Speaker, as I just received it prior to coming into the house. Has the government of Sweden imposed an import licensing system against our canned lobsters? If so, what effect will it have on prices, in view of the fact that our lobster season opened May 1?
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: I shall have to take note of the question and give an answer on Monday.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a
question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in reference to the announcement he made just before eleven o'clock last evening. Will the effectiveness of the changes in respect to old age pensions, which he said would commence as at May 1, depend upon provincial agreements? If so, have the provinces been informed of any part they must play in the matter?


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As the hon.
gentleman knows, of course once the legislation is passed the provincial governments must enter into agreements with the federal government, and arrangements are being made to that end.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the government at this session to bring down a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Prairie Farm Assistance
Act is also under consideration, and I shall make a statement in due course.



IMMIGRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Glen for the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act.
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the bill to amend the Immigration Act it is practically essential first to devote some moments to a consideration of the statement made yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which was the first comprehensive statement by the government on immigration that has

Immigration Act
been made since I have been here, and, as far as I know, since the conclusion of the war.
Of course it is early as yet to attempt a detailed analysis of the statement or its effect on Canada's immigration problem, but I think one can safely say that as to the portion of ttie statement dealing with the immediate application of the policy-referring to the admission of relatives of Canadian citizens, and to our part in taking care of the displaced persons in Europe-there is very general . agreement. Particularly is that so in reference to the part dealing with the admission of relatives of persons already resident in Canada. Indeed, if one might be permitted a criticism of that part of the statement at this stage, it would be that the statement has been too long delayed, or at least the application of the policy has been too long delayed, because after all perhaps no country in the world is in a better position than Canada to play a full part in relieving the distress and suffering of those displaced persons. We have seen evidence on the part of hon. members belonging to all parties of a very great and urgent desire that we should take our full part in relieving that distress. So I think that the criticism does apply, that it is to be regretted that the statement was not made earlier, and particularly that the policy was not worked out and put into effect perhaps as much as a year ago.
In this connection I would urge upon the Prime Minister and the government that when those officials of the immigration department, whom he indicated were being sent to Europe to investigate this matter of the displaced persons, go over there and interview these people, they do not place too narrow an interpretation upon the words "enemy aliens." Surely this should be treated as a humanitarian problem, and the only principle applied should be to assist those persons who are in need of assistance by permitting them to come to Canada on the basis of their need and their suitability, not on the basis of any narrow legal interpretation as to whether or not they are enemy aliens. Probably all hon. members have received letters from or have knowledge of Canadian citizens with relatives in Europe, in what were enemy countries or enemy occupied countries, who wish to have those relatives brought to Canada; but because at the moment we have this limitation against the admission of enemy aliens those relatives cannot be admitted. I personally know of a Canadian citizen who has relatives in Austria. Those relatives were put in a concentration camp by the Germans where at least one of them died, and they do not know whether others died there as well. He is anxious that his surviving relatives, particularly his sister
and her sons, should be permitted to come to Canada and live with him. He can provide them with accommodation and can give them support, but at the present time, though they were put in a concentration camp by the Germans, and though at least some of them died there, under present regulations the entry of those people would be delayed because they are regarded as enemy aliens. So I would ask that our immigration officials who are being sent to Europe to look into this question of displaced persons, be not confined to a narrow, technical interpretation of those words, but that they be empowered to examine every case upon its merits. If a person is deserving and desirous of coming to Canada, then he should be allowed to do so.
As I have said, in general there certainly are grounds for agreement with the first portion of the statement made yesterday, dealing with the immediate application of the government's immigration policy. As to the other portion, however, dealing with the long range policy, I feel there is cause for considerable disappointment. If we analyse that portion of the statement we find that it iays down a number of broad general principles with which we can all agree, and indeed which have been urged from time to time by members on all sides of the house. I should like to read those principles. As reported at page 2644 of Hansard for Thursday, May 1, the Prime Minister said:
The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation, and vigorous administration, to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can advantageously be absorbed in our national economy.
At page 2645 he elaborated that by saying: Let me now speak of the government's long term programme. It is based on the conviction that Canada needs population. The government is strongly of the view that our immigration policy should be devised in a positive sense, with the definite objective, as I have already stated, of enlarging the population of the country.
TV ith those general principles there can surely be nothing but agreement. But when it comes to the practical application of those principles, that is, the actual policy of the government with regard to immigration, there is no such definite pronouncement, and it is here, I submit, that there is cause for genuine disappointment.
I should like to read what the Prime Minister said when he dealt with the actual policy.
I find that after laying down these very general principles, by which he said the government would be guided in the detailed appli-
REVISm EDITUW
Immigration Act

cation of this immigration policy, the Prime Minister went on to build up the situation to the point where one might assume that the government was ready immediately to apply this immigration policy or, if not to apply it, at least to lay down a general outline so that the country, and particularly those who are anxious to emigrate to Canada, might know exactly how they would eventually go about doing it.
But when it comes to the point where one might expect to find this general outline laid down, one's expectations are not realized. We find that the Prime Minister is reported at page 2646 of Hansard in these words:
For some time to come, no matter what special shipping arrangements we may be able to achieve, conditions of transport will limit the number of immigrants. When that limitation ceases to prevail, it will be necessary to consider further what measures will best achieve the adjustment of immigration to the numbers that can be absorbed into the economy of Canada.
And with tha-t statement, we were left. There was no indication, even in general outline, of just how the government proposes to go about applying these general principles to the policy the development of which it has in mind.
There is no indication, for instance, of where we will look, or to what countries we will look, for our immigrants. There is no indication of the general type and classification of the entrants who will be permitted to come to Canada. There is no indication that the government is prepared to enter into negotiations with, say, the governments of the United Kingdom, France or the Netherlands, or the low countries-there is no indication of negotiations with those countries with regard to plans for assisted immigration in the future. There is no indication as to what measure of assistance will be provided to immigrants, or indeed whether any assistance will be provided.
All these matters could surely have been covered in a general outline of a plan for immigration, even one which was to be put into effect only at a future time. The practical importance of laying down such a general outline can be realized, I think, when one calls to mind the fact that there are now large numbers of people, in Europe especially, looking to that day in the future when they may be abfe to emigrate to the new world. I suggest we should make known our intentions for the future, and should do it at this time, even though we cannot now put it into effect, so that those who are anxious to emigrate and who, if they cannot come to Canada, or do not know they will be permitted to come to Canada and as a result will look to
Australia, South Africa or South America, will know that they will be able at some future time to come to this country. I have in mind people of the best type, who are anxious to make their homes in the new world. They will now be anxious to choose Canada as their future home. But if we do not do this, or take some such step, then surely it is quite possible that we will lose our chance to get the best, the most active and the most desirable type of immigrants for this country. We know, for instance, that Australia, South Africa and others of the British dominions have their plans. Indeed, they have agents in Europe and the United Kingdom at this time who are receiving applications for immigration. I suggest Canada should do the same.
In short, the principles of our long-range immigration policy have been laid down. With those principles there is general agreement. I would urge the Prime Minister and the government to go further, and to commit themselves not only to the priciples, which no one questions, but to the policy, so that the house and country will know in general outline how they are going to accomplish that to which they are committed. Otherwise I suggest the Prime Minister and government lay themselves open to a serious charge of evasion.
Turning to the other feature of the bill now before the house, I should like to deal with the matter of the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. It is some two months since this matter was last discussed in the house, so I should like to refer Your Honour and hon. members back to some of the suggestions made at that time by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green).
At the conclusion of his remarks as they are reported in Hansard for February 11, we find the hon. member saying this at page 313:
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, once more I would ask that this house and this country, before this hill is passed, be given full details concerning Chinese immigration that will be allowed if the Chinese Immigration Act is repealed, and what will be the future policy in regard to Chinese immigration.
That was his first point. Then he went on to make two further points, which should be considered in connection with this matter. He said:
Also we should be told the policy of this government toward the suggested united nations control over immigration into Canada, and in the third place we should be told the policy of this government concerning Japanese immigration.
Apparently the Prime Minister gave careful consideration to those three points suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver

Immigration Act
South. There was certainly a long delay in proceeding with this measure, which might justify one in concluding that the government was impressed by what had been said. But further evidence that consideration was given to those suggestions is found, I think, in the fact that when the Prime Minister made his statement yesterday, he did deal specifically with those three points. I think congratulations should be extended to the hon. member for Vancouver South for the contribution he made in the matter; and certainly I should like to express appreciation of the fact that those points were covered in the statement so that now when we come to discuss this matter we have knowledge of what the government's policy is.
The Prime Minister covered the matter of united nations control of immigration when, as reported in his statement at page 2645 of Hansard he said this:
Canada is not obliged, as a result of membership in the united nations or under the constitution of the international refugee organization, to accept any specific number of refugees or displaced persons.
And again:
I wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right" of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestic policy. Immigration is subject to the control of the parliament of Canada.
With those statements certainly we in this party are in agreement. And in view of the possibility, through some other interpretation of the united nations charter, of our being called upon to accept large numbers of immigrants from any country which might suggest that they be allowed to come, I am certainly glad to have the statement from the Prime Minister that no such attitude would be adopted.
He dealt also with the question of Japanese immigration in these words:
With regard to the Japanese, I stated on August 4, 1944, at which time we were at war with Japan, that the government felt that in the years after the war the immigration of Japanese should not be permitted. This is the present view and policy of the government.
So that aspect of the problem of immigration has now been settled. It arose only with respect to the application of P.C. 2115, which deals with Asiatic immigration generally. We are glad to have the Prime Minister's assurance that the present policy of this government is that Japanese immigration will not be permitted.
With regard to a request for a definite statement of policy with respect to Chinese 83166-172J
immigration, I find that no such definite assurance and no such definite outline of what the policy will be was given. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated distinctly, as reported on page 2646 of Hansard:
-apart from the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act and the revocation of order in council P.C. 1378 of June 17, 1931, regarding naturalization, the government has no intention of removing _ the existing regulations respecting Asiatic immigration unless and until alternative measures of effective control have been worked out.
That brings to mind the question: What is to be the effective control of Asiatic and Chinese immigration? From what the Prime Minister said it appears it is to be only P.C. 2115, which prohibits oriental immigration except for persons coming within certain specified categories. I suggest that that is not satisfactory, for at least two reasons. First, the matter is too important to be left to an order in council for disposition. A matter of such importance as immigration from the orient surely is a matter which should be determined by the government on the basis of a measure submitted to and approved by the House of Commons. The Chinese Immigration Act, which we are being asked to repeal, was a measure passed by the House of Commons, and I suggest it would be proper if the alternative immigration measure was one which had been submitted to and passed by the House of Commons.
Perhaps a more important point is that orders in council can be repealed without being submitted to the house. Orders in council have been forgotten and overlooked in the past, and new orders in council with entirely different provisions can be passed without reference to the house, or passed when the house is not sitting. It is not sufficient safeguard to say that they can be revoked by addresses subsequently passed by both houses of parliament. In dealing with matters concerning an immigration policy it is essential that the decision of parliament be obtained before the policy is put into effect.
I urge again that the proper way to determine a Chinese immigration policy, the proper way to limit immigration from China or any other country in the orient, would be by concluding a treaty with that country. Such a treaty need not be concluded on the basis of discrimination. It is not unfair or unjust, and I have the support of the Prime Minister's own statement for this, for Canada to say that we would prefer to have one type of immigrant rather than another. That is exercising a right which is just and proper and which is within our own power to exercise. In his statement on previous occasions with regard
Immigration Act

to this subject the Prime Minister has indicated that China said she would not regard it as discrimination if we were to ask her to limit the number of immigrants coming to this country. What she is anxious for is to be treated on a basis of equality in making such a treaty. What she wants is to have negotiations carried on in an aboveboard manner. Now, therefore, we are suggesting to the Prime Minister that that would be the proper -way to make arrangements with regard to Chinese immigration; vie should not leave it merely to be determined by order in council.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I interrupt my hon. friend? Why not say that in my statement I said that the method that will be adopted is to seek to make treaty arrangements on a reciprocal basis so that each country would receive the same treatment and consideration?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister did refer to that, and I was coming to it in a minute. He said that the Canadian government was prepared at any time to enter into negotiations with other countries. The point I was about to make when the right hon. gentleman interrupted was that on several occasions in the past he indicated that he felt we should make a treaty with China and at one time he indicated that that treaty was in the course of negotiation. The point I wish to make is that that would be the proper way to do it, and that it should have been done already. I was then going on to ask what had become of the treaty and why it had not been carried through to conclusion. I should like to refer to what the Prime Minister said in 1943 when this matter was being discussed in the house when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were up for consideration. Consideration was being given to the desirability of removing the discriminatory features of the Chinese Immigration Act. The Prime Minister recounted a conversation he had had with Madame Chiang Kai-Shek when she had mentioned the elimination of these discriminatory features, and then he went on to say, as reported on page 4683 of Hansard of July 12, 1943:
I believe it should be possible to work out a reciprocal arrangement between Canada and China which "would be helpful to both countries.
Then in the next year, on April 17, 1944, the matter came up again in connection with a treaty which had been concluded with China with regard to the exchange of diplomatic representatives. Apparently that treaty provided that the two countries should continue negotiations and should enter into a treaty
TMr. Fulton.]
with regard to such matters as immigration. At that time the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 2065 of Hansard:
The treaty provides that, not later than six months after the cessation of hostilities, the two governments will enter into a comprehensive modern treaty of friendship, commerce, navigation and consular rights; meanwhile, questions affecting the rights of Canadian nationals in China and questions affecting the sovereignty of the republic of China, which are not covered by this or previous treaties, will be decided in accordance with generally accepted principles of international law.
A little later he elaborated somewhat, and I quote from page 2067 of the same Hansard:
On January 17, 1944, we presented the Chinese minister with a draft of an immigration treaty, which, if approved and implemented by Canadian legislation, would supersede the Canadian Immigration Act of 1923 against which so many protests have been made.
The draft treaty provides for the admission to either country on renewable permits for temporary residence of nationals of the other country belonging to approved categories.
Apparently the treaty was in the course of negotiation at that time. It was then intimated, although not stated definitely as a matter of policy, that the treaty would be concluded before the Chinese Immigration Act would be repealed. On April 24, 1944, the Prime Minister again referred to the same matter, and I quote from page 2282 of Hansard:
Should the proposed treaty with China, which I mentioned on Monday last, be concluded before the end of the session, there will be a measure to amend the Chinese Immigration Act.
On the basis of those statements it seems fair to say that the intention at that time was that a treaty with China should be first concluded so that all matters respecting immigration between the two countries would be governed by that treaty, and that then the Chinese Immigration Act would be repealed. While I have been careful to say that that was not stated as a matter of policy, it does appear that it was the intention.
It is significant in this connection that we are now asked to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act and we have no detailed policy to replace it, a policy which it was then indicated would be incorporated in a treaty to be concluded between the two countries. In this connection I would ask the Prime Minister what has happened to that treaty? Why has the treaty not been concluded? Is the matter still open, and is it intended to conclude such a treaty? Will that treaty be comprehensive and all-embracing with regard to immigration? On our part we urge that that would be the proper way to handle the immigration question as between the two countries. A treaty concluded between equal countries and incor-

Immigration Act
porating terms which each country has presented to the other as being the proper basis upon which to admit immigrants from the other country would be the most satisfactory method of removing all traces of discrimination with regard to any limitation which might be placed upon such immigration. So we urge that such a treaty should be comprehensive and all-embracing, covering all aspects of immigration, both the admission of the wives of persons of Chinese origin now resident in Canada and the admission of Chinese immigrants in the future. We submit that this should not be left merely to regulation by order in council. I think it would not be too extreme a statement to say that the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act should not be proceeded with until we have answers to those questions and until we have such a treaty or some permanent definite policy to put in its place.
There are further questions which come to mind when considering this matter in the light of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, concerning particularly the admission of the wives and families of Chinese at present in Canada. Does the present proposal in the light of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday mean that all the wives and families of Canadian Chinese now resident in Canada shall be permitted to come into Canada when this bill is repealed and the order in council is in force as the only means of governing Chinese immigration? In that connection the house should recall the numbers involved. There are over 22,000 males of Chinese origin living in Canada who have wives and families living in China, and of those 22,000 over
12.000	reside in the province of British Columbia. I would ask specifically, would not an influx of 22,000 wives and families into Canada and over 12,000 wives and families into one province alone, British Columbia, be, to use the Prime Minister's own words, a "considerable oriental immigration"? In his statement yesterday the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 2046 of Hansard:
Large-scale immigration from the orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population. Any considerable oriental immigration would, moreover, be certain to give rise to social and economic problems of a character that might lead to serious difficulties in the field of international relations.
I ask this question of the Prime Minister or perhaps of the Minister of Mines and Resources: Would not the immigration of
22.000	Chinese wives and families into Canada and of over 12.000 into one province alone come within the category of "considerable
oriental immigration"? I think we should have an answer to that question before we are asked to pass this bill.
We have said that the whole matter should be covered in a treaty. There are other questions which should be answered. If all these wives and families are to be admitted, are they all to be admitted in the first year after the Chinese Immigration Act is repealed, or how many are to b'e admitted each year? Will an unmarried Chinese now living in Canada be allowed to go back to China, marry and then bring his wife back under the order in council, or is it contemplated that it will be applied only to those already married? We should like the government to give a detailed statement of its whole policy with regard to the question of Chinese immigration and its application under P.C. 2115, as well as a statement as to how P.C. 2115 is to be administered.
This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, particularly for the province of British Columbia. I am speaking for myself here, but I do not think any British Columbia member would take a stand against the admission of the wives of these loyal Canadian Chinese who have made such a contribution to our province. They have been extremely good citizens there. We have no Chinese problem in the same way that we have a Japanese problem, and in illustration of that fact I mention that in British Columbia the Chinese amongst others were given the right to vote this year. That is a concrete indication of the way we feel about them. They are now accepted into our citizenship. They are my constituents just as much as Canadians of the white race are my constituents. I am not at the moment opposing the admission of the wife of one of these Chinese citizens, but I do want to know what will be the policy. How many will be allowed to come in and when will they be allowed to come in? Will Chinese now resident in Canada be allowed to go back and marry and bring back their wives to Canada? I should like an answer to those questions before I am asked to agree to the passing of this bill, particularly in the light of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that he did not propose to permit any considerable oriental immigration into Canada. It makes us wonder, however, if they are all allowed1 to be brought in, whether British Columbia will not once again be saddled with what is truly a national question.
In conclusion I repeat that we feel we are entitled to answers to those questions, either from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Mines and Resources, before we are asked to pass this bill, and that we should have a
Immigration Act

full statement from the government as to just how this policy will be administered under P.C. 2115. Particularly would we like an explanation with regard to the treaty which was at one time being negotiated with China, and whether those negotiations are still continuing, and whether such treaty when concluded will embrace all questions of immigration as between Canada and China. If the treaty has been dropped, we should like to know why it has been dropped and whether it is intended to resume negotiations in the future. I feel that we should have answers to those questions before we are asked to give second1 reading to the bill.


Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my first words this afternoon must be to express my personal gratification that the subject of Canadian immigration has come under the personal attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Two years ago, speaking for the second time in the house, I spoke on immigration. Since that time a number of other members have made their contributions to the subject, particularly the member for Vaneouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) and the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I venture to say this afternoon that the opposition to a large extent have made the policy expressed by the Prime Minister yesterday. If you go back over the history of immigration in this house during the last two years you will find, Mr. Speaker, that that contention is well founded.
Along with a number of other hon. members I welcome the action which has been taken by the government to admit members of the families of Canadian citizens and residents, members of the veterans forces who fought beside us in the war, and this delayed assistance to displaced persons. I welcome particularly the action taKen on behalf of Canadian women engaged to men overseas. The action which the government is now taking places these women in the same category as men. It allows them to bring their fiances to Canada.
Two other things remain to be done, Mr. Speaker. One is to follow up the remarks made by the Prime Minister in his statement yesterday as reported at page 2646 of Hansard, where he said:
The immigration branch of the Department of Mines and Resources and its offices abroad were reduced to proportions wholly inadequate to cope with an active immigration policy. With the end of the war, and in the light of changed economic conditions, the government has already taken steps to expand and strengthen this branch of the public service.

It is my opinion that in spite of the fine service given by this branch, the extreme courtesy which they have extended to me on all occasions, it could still stand further support from the government and a further increase in	staff to	deal with this	urgent
problem.
The second thing I want to say this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is this. We have heard the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) speak of treaties this afternoon; we must now be prepared to ask the labour government of Britain for a treaty. I have made some study	of this	subject. As	I	understand it, the	labour government are	restrictingthe emigration of their people, and this applies not	only to	Canada but	to	other
empire countries. Britain stands in history at about the same point that France stood when the Huguenots left there to take to the far corners of the earth their genius in art, in architecture, in industrial organization, in craft work, and in many other specialized lines. Britain is now about to be forced to export some of its "know-how". It must export its "know-how" because a great many of these people want to leave. I am one who agrees with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who stated yesterday that Britain is an occupied country, occupied by an alien form of government. I am prepared to say that socialism in the years to come will add to Britain's many other burdens which have resulted from the war. We must now be ready to receive the torch from these people, to accept the "know-how", and to give them the freedom which they will be denied at home.
When I rose I said that my remarks would be brief. In closing may I refer to what the Prime Minister said on page 2645 of Hansard, that the government's new policy will be energetically applied. He was there referring to enlarging the population of the country. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that "energetic application", to quote the Prime Minister's words, means something at this time. In the two short years that I have been here we have seen the government in many frames of mind. I hope that in this instance "energetic application" means what it says.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: May I ask the hon. member if this is not the second time that he has spoken on the second reading of the bill?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I spoke on the resolution,
Mr. Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was very good, anyway.

Immigration Act


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: I do not intend to detain the house more than a few minutes, but there is one aspect of this situation which I wish to bring to the attention of the government and of the house. Before I do so I should like to express great appreciation of the part taken by the Canadian government' in regard to assisting in the problem of refugees at international meetings. We were certainly pleased to see that at the meeting which set up the international refugee organization, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), on behalf of Canada, took such a leading part in urging that the nations of the world as a whole take some interest in these most unfortunate people. That attitude was approved throughout western Canada. I am sure too that the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, in which he indicated that the problem of displaced persons was to get special consideration at the hands of the government of Canada, was greeted with a great deal of relief and satisfaction by many people in Canada who have relatives who are refugees and displaced persons in Europe. They will be very thankful for that statement.
I have heard people who came from Europe, because of policies adopted by the present government after the first great war and just before the start of the recent war when part of Czechoslovakia was overrun, state to the Prime Minister that if it had not been for action taken by the present government they would not be alive today. I have heard others say that they never went to bed at night without getting down on their knees and thanking God that they had the privilege to come to this free country. Therefore I do not think that members of the house can have any complete understanding, unless they know personally people who feel like that, of how much this statement of yesterday's will be appreciated by many people in Canada with relatives in these camps and among the refugees and displaced persons in Europe today.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said at page 2645 of Hansard:
The resettlement of refugees and displaced persons constitutes a special problem. In the intergovernmental committee on refugees, and in the discussions in the united nations leading to the establishment of the international refugee organization, Canada has taken an active part.
As I say, I am pleased that that attitude has been taken by the government.
There is, however, one matter which I feel I must bring to the attention of the government. I hope that I am not properly informed on it, but if I am, it is a matter which should receive attention at once. In the mandate of
the intergovernmental committee which was adopted on August 17, 1944, the following appears:
The mandate of the committee extends to all persons, wherever they may be, who, as a result of events in Europe, have had to leave, or may have to leave, their countries of residence because of the danger to their lives or liberties on account of their race, religion or political beliefs.
That is a statement which is in accordance with the most humanitarian traditions of our country-that if anyone has to leave his country on account of his race, religion and political beliefs we should be ready to extend to him a helping hand. Unfortunately that was not carried forward into the international refugee organization. I understand this was largely due to the pressure of the Soviet Union and the states under its influence. That is what I understand; but I may be wrong in this but I do not think I am. In any event, section (d). part II, of the constitution of the international refugee organization reads as follows:
Persons who will not be the concern of the organization:
4. Persons of German ethnic origin, whether German nationals or members of German minorities in other countries, who:
(a)	have been or may be transferred to Germany from other countries;
(b)	have been, during the second world war, evacuated from Germany to other countries;
(c)	-
This is the part that is important.
(c) have fled from, or into, Germany, or from their places of residence into countries other than Germany in order to avoid falling into the hands of allied armies.
The part that has particular reference to the people I am going to speak about is this:
Have fled . . . into Germany ... in order to avoid falling into the hands of allied armies.
The only substantial group that applies to are the people who lived in the Baltic states, in parts of Roumania, in Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, Russia, and the Ukraine. Those people, because of their known anti-communist attitude, fled before the advancing Soviet armies into Germany. Where it was known particularly that they were of German ethnic origin they felt that it was safer for them to find refuge in the hands of the British and Americans than to fall into the control of the advancing Soviet armies. I take it from this that the international refugee organization does not take any interest in anyone who is of German ethnic origin, where for example he and his ancestors may have lived in the Baltic states for several generations, perhaps for a hundred years. If he is of German ethnic origin and was known to be anti-
Immigration Act

communist and fled into Germany, IRO does not regard him as their concern. What IRO does, of course, is a matter to be decided on at international conferences. That is something that I have no right to find fault with here, because we know there is great difficulty in getting things agreed to in international meetings which we might perhaps like to have agreed to there. What I do say is that what IRO does is one thing and what we do under our immigration administration is another thing. In this I entirely agree with the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as reported at page 2646 of Hansard:
With regard to the selection of immigrants, much has been said about discrimination. I wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we -regard as desirable future citizens.
I would say this, and I think that all hon. members of the house will agree with me, that among our finest immigrants have been those who came to us from the various countries of Europe, who are of German ethnic origin. We have in Canada literally hundreds of thousands of people who are of that descent. If the IRO says that those people are not of any concern to them, I think we in this country should not let that influence us in our immigration policy. If those people are within the four corners of our immigration policy, if they come within the type of persons who would otherwise be admissible, the fact that they are not under the control or aegis of IRO should not prevent us from having our immigration officials interview them and permit them entry into Canada. To have any other policy is to permit IRO, under the influence of the Soviet union in that regard, to say in effect that we shall not admit people of German ethnic origin into our country.
Let there be no mistake about the matter. I am not at the present time speaking about people who are enemy nationals, although I do say this, Mr. Speaker: the war has been over long enough now that if there had been any real desire on the part of the Soviet union to have real peace rapidly established, I think we would have had a peace conference before this and those people would no longer be enemy nationals. But be that as it may; I am not at the moment speaking of enemy nationals. I am speaking about people of German ethnic origin who may have lived in the Baltic states for example-they and their people-for generations and who are not German nationals any more than General Eisenhower is a German national-of German ethnic origin perhaps, but. not German nationals. Within the British zone and the American zone there are literally thousands 
of these people that IRO will have nothing to do with. They are regarded as the charge of the German people. Where their relatives in this country desire to have them admitted to Canada and they are within our immigration regulations. I do ask the government, no matter what IRO has ruled, that they be admitted. They have shown, by the type of people they are, by the kind of relatives they have here, that they would be fine citizens of this country. Where they want to come here in order to be with their relatives, I ask the government to make no discrimination in that regard, and I earnestly urge that these people be admitted to Canada just as readily as any others among those refugees and displaced persons.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have been more or less shanghaied into this debate by my genial and witty friend the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Speaking on this measure when it was last before the house, he said-and I quote from page 327 of Hansard:
The members from British Columbia, with the exception of one, are unanimous in this, and that one cannot help himself. He is a very fine man, but he cannot help himself because he has to do what he is told.
Then in the very next paragraph the same speaker says:
I believe it is up to this government to give us a clear-cut decision in this matter; although I might not agree with it, I might have to agree with it.
Indicating that perhaps he is the one who has to do what he is told. But that is only incidental, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say a few words on what appears to me to be the most important feature of this bill, and that is the part of it which provides against certain discriminations which have been hitherto applied to people of the Chinese race who have been brought into this country. That I think is a most important feature of the present discussion. It is true that the whole question of immigration has been opened up, and the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday I think was timely and will probably save a good deal of futile speculation and debate as to what the policy of the government is with respect to immigration. I think it hardly necessary to say that what we do and how we treat our citizens of Chinese origin is not a matter for British Columbia alone; it is a national matter, a matter in which the whole good name and honour of Canada is involved. While I have every sympathy for those of Chinese origin who may have suffered discrimination in Canada, and which discrimination at least in part is now being removed by
Immigration Act
the bill before us, my chief reason is not to speak in the interests of such citizens merely, but to speak in our own interest, in the interests of Canada. When we permit discrimination against one section of our citizenry we are doing harm to ourselves, far more harm than we are doing to the group against which we discriminate. And so it is because of the good name of Canada, because of the freedom for which this country stands, at least theoretically and, I am glad to say, stands for in most things really; it is because we want to guard against any infringement of our own accepted principles of freedom that I am going to insist, as far as I can, on the complete removal of discrimination against any class of Canadian citizens.
The legislation proposed is a partial remedy for a long standing wrong. I need not go into details in that regard, because hon. members of the house know exactly to which things I refer. One of those discriminations still stands; that is, that residents of Canada of Chinese origin, unless they are Canadian citizens, still cannot bring in their relatives, their children or their wives, whereas other immigrants coming from other parts of the world can do so. As far as I know that is the only discrimination now remaining against our Chinese immigrants; all the others are being removed. So the bill may be said to be a denial of the murder of the spirit of racial inequality, while closing the door on the skeleton which still may be used in evidence.


Mr. LOW:: You will have to explain that one.


William Irvine: Well, we shall leave it for further consideration. I think when my hon. friend sees it in Hansard he will understand its meaning. As I say, this is the last vestige of inequality which stands, and I am urging the minister in charge of this legislation to give consideration to its removal. I suggest that he either extend to immigrants from China who are now in Canada the same privilege that is extended to all other immigrants, or else impose upon all others an equal restriction which would mean that immigrants from other countries, unless they are citizens of Canada, could not bring in their wives, children and relatives. That would put them on the same basis. We cannot afford to have two standards of dealing with either our immigrants or our citizens, and that is the point I want to emphasize. I wrant to make a plea for equality of treatment to all who are permitted to come within our gates.
I have already pointed out that I believe those who are defending the discrimination have no desire to inflict any hurt upon any 83166-173
member of the yellow race; but they do so. Not only that, but they are inflicting greater harm upon Canada herself. I want to take issue particularly with the viewpoint expressed earlier in this debate by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), who happens not to be in his seat; I am sure I shall say nothing he would want to deny even if he were here. In his remarks the hon. member told us he wanted to keep his eye on the ball, which was the main immigration policy; then he promptly kicked the ball off the field entirely and was still looking for it in the bushes at the close of his remarks. But that is only in passing.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: It is probably locked up in the cupboard with your skeleton.


William Irvine: The hon. member gave us an illustration which I want to quote and use in another sense. His illustration was this, that if he found his neighbours in need of economic assistance he would not invite them all to live at his house, but would give of his substance to the utmost of his ability to maintain his impecunious neighbours in their own homes rather than bring them into his own. I think that illustration may have some real point if he applies it to a general immigration policy. But let me apply a similar illustration to the actual situation with which this bill deals. Let me suppose that the hon. member for Lethbridge invited a number of his neighbours to have a meal with him, to enjoy his hospitality. When they arrived he picked out two or three and said, "You have to eat in the kitchen. You cannot come into the main dining room with the rest of us; you stay out here." Perhaps two or three of them would be sent down to the basement with their plates. I know the hon. gentleman would never think of doing that. He is far too courteous and too kind to do anything like that; but if he did he would be regarded as a snob, not only by those who were forced to sit in the kitchen but also by those who were allowed to sit at the table with the host himself. That is pretty much the situation. In this particular at least we do not allow these people to sit at the table with the host; we deny them that one little privilege. We put them in the kitchen and say, "You stay there; you cannot have all the privileges." Since this is such a small thing I hope the minister and the Prime Minister will reconsider it. Its effect upon the ultimate immigration policy would be very slight, but its effect upon the name of Canada may be very great. That is a matter which must be taken into eonsidera-

Immigration Act

tion by those who will represent Canada around the international table dealing with the problems of the united nations. I cannot imagine that anyone from Canada would want to feel that this country could be properly criticized for that particular failure or limitation in our democratic principles.
The hon. member who just took his seat spoke about the number wrho would be involved if all our citizens of Chinese origin were permitted to send for their wives. It is not a matter of a thousand or two that must be taken into consideration; it is a matter of principle. We are either going to extend the principle or we are not, and the matter of a hundred or fifty or two hundred or a thousand or five thousand does not come into the picture at all. I do not see that there is a shred of argument in favour of stopping short of giving Chinese residents of Canada exactly the same treatment that we give all others who come from other parts of the world.
As to the main immigration policy I have not very much I want to say. As I have said, I think the Prime Minister's statement was timely. I believe in the main it has met with favourable response from the house.
I have just listened to an hon. member who, speaking on this phase of the discussion, made reference to Great Britain. He said that Britain is an occupied country

occupied by an alien government. Mr. Speaker, that statement will stand on the records of this parliament as a monument tc the ignorance of that Conservative member. I am prepared to leave it at that. I believe future history will give my hon. friend the answer. To say that a government that has been elected by the British people in a democratic way, a government that has not lost a by-election in two years, is alien, is not only to express abysmal ignorance, but to offer insult to the British people. I hope the leader of his party will apologize for him before the discussion closes.
This I want to say, that while there is great room in Canada and while there are great resources in Canada for a great many more people, and while in that regard most of us are in agreement with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he says that we should seek to gain a greater population, still I question whether we could carry out such a policy at the present time. I question whether we could get the immigrants. For from all northern and eastern Europe, including Russia-from all that vast territory- there will be no immigrants. And there will

be very little immigration from those other countries such as Norway, Sweden and Britain for some time at least.
Great Britain is not refusing to send immigrants to Canada because there is ar. alien government there, as was suggested by the previous speaker; but, because in her tremendous rehabilitation programme she needs all the workers she has. She cannot afford to send them out to another country. The same is true of such countries as Sweden, Denmark and Norway, and those other democracies from which, as I have said, we have in the past received such excellent citizens.
So that I think the thing for us to concentrate on at the present time-and I believe the Prime Minister said this-is that of giving priority to the refugees, of whom I understand there are between 800,000 and one million in Europe. They are homeless; they are pretty well helpless, and they are driven to the point of starvation. If we can accommodate more people in Canada at the present time, if we can fit them into ou-r economic system and give them employment and some assurance of being able to find work by which they can live, then I think we ought to make it our first effort to take as many of them as we can. And we can afford to leave the other phases of an immigration policy for future consideration. Not only do we want to have those people from the point of view of our own population, but we owe it to them and to humanity to do our best to absorb as many of them as we can.
In this regard I would say to the Prime Minister that I think we might do more than we have done. It is true, as he pointed out, that one of our great difficulties has been to have shipping sufficient to carry them. But I think an effort might have been made to get some shipping, and I still think something ought to be done in that regard. People who are in the condition of many of the refugees in Europe are not looking for first class passage on the Queen Elizabeth. They will be glad to get here on more modest transports. We might very easily have used some of our cargo boats temporarily fitted up to carry a considerable number of those refugees from Europe.
Somehow or another Australia managed to bring in 50,000 children in one year, and has undertaken to take 70,000 immigrants each year. If Australia can do that, then surely Canada ought not to be behind in a programme of that kind.
Next I say that with regard to the whole oriental question I must agree with the Prime Minister that this country, like every other

Immigration Act
country, must say who are to come here. We have that right. And if it be the wash of this country that any nationality be excluded, that is the business of the country. It is far better to exclude them, whoever they may be, than to admit them in a position of inferiority, under which they are not permitted to enter into all the privileges enjoyed by Canadian citizens.


Clarence Gillis: Send them to the maritimes and they would be right at home.


William Irvine: I conclude with this, that there still remains a point of discrimination in the legislation. I am going to vote for the bill, because it represents a very considerable improvement. However I am pleading with the Prime Minister to go a little bit further so as to remove the one remaining discrimination which, I say, is a disgrace to Canada, and does more harm to us than it would do to anyone, even if it were our intention to do harm by maintaining it.


Mr. T. A. KIDD (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with Bill No. 10, to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act, first reading of which took place on February 7. This bill has been framed so as to deal with two different subjects, and from the expressions of opinion from some seventeen or eighteen members who have already spoken, it is evident that the bill is contentious.
Immigration cannot be approached without dealing with emigration. Today a most alarming condition is rapidly developing in Canada. It is a repetition of what occurred in 1920 and 1930. During the past eighteen months hundreds-yes, thousands-of Canada's first-class citizens have been emigrating across the border to the United States. Of course this is through no fault of their own, but is due to conditions existing in Canada at the present time. Young Canadians with families, who have been educated in our colleges, collegiates, technical schools and universities, are going across the boundary line to better themselves, because no suitable employment or positions are available for them here at home.
It will be recalled that in the early twenties Canada lost 100,000 citizens annually over a period of ten years. That means that a million good Canadian citizens left Canada to take up their homes in the United States. Something was wrong. Canada's emigration should be most carefully supervised to see that there is no recurrence of the happenings of those early twenties. During that ten year period 150,000 entered Canada annually,
50.000	coming from the United Kingdom and
100.000	from central Europe and elsewhere.
83166-173J
That is, of every three immigrants who entered Canada only one was British, and for every three immigrants who entered Canada we lost two native sons to the United States. Doctors, nurses and members of other professions left Canada in the early twenties and are today holding senior positions in the United States. My mind goes back this afternoon to a legion reunion which was held in 1940, the first year of world war II. The eastern Ontario meeting was held in Kingston and members of the various branches attended. One was a young returned soldier of world war I who had gone to the United States in order to find employment and had located in Rochester. Twenty years later he returned to visit his friends, bringing with him his Canadian wife and three children. This boy who fought for Canada in world war I and who had the right to expect that Canada would provide employment for him on demobilization was compelled to seek his future in the United States. This case is only one of many Canadians who went to the United States in# that ten year period. Think of what Canada has lost and let us see that it does not occur again.
A statement is due to the house and it should come from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who is in his seat today. I welcome him back. He should tell us what steps are being taken by the government to make it possible for young Canadians to see a future in Canada and obtain employment with suitable remuneration. Government immigration policies seem to have been discussed by various ministers of the crown. When the time came to present the order in council which permitted the entry of Polish immigrants it was sponsored by the then Minister of Justice, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has given several interviews on the subject of immigration and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) went out of his way a few days ago to define the government policy on immigration. We more or less expected that any leadership on immigration would come from the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), but the minister has been silent in so far as defining what the government's policy will be on this important question. On May 1, the Prime Minister submitted to the house the government policy.
On April 30, 1946, when the house was discussing the citizenship bill, the minister seemed to go out of his way to place on record the number of British subjects who had been deported between April 30, 1930, and March 31, 1945, and I refer hon. members
Immigration Act

to page 1076 of Hansard of April 30, 1946. He did not show the number of admissions from nor did he show the number of deportations to other countries. I go back a little farther to the dominion-provincial conference held in November, 1927, when Canada's immigration policy was an item of consideration. Premier Taschereau of Quebec declared that sixty per cent of the inmates of the asylums in Montreal and forty per cent of the inmates of jails were aliens. He stated he believed that such people should be deported as fast as they came to this country. In referring to aliens he could not have been referring to those of British stock. Therefore we must be careful today and not make our policy too wide open.
When Lord Jellicoe was in Canada he referred to immigration. He stated that between 1920 and 1930 upwards of 250,000 persons had annually left the shores of the United Kingdom to settle in other lands. Of those 250,000, only about 50,000 arrived in Canada. We find that of every five persons who left the United Kingdom only one came to Canada. Why did Canada not do more to encourage immigration from the United Kingdom? Let us see that the same mistake is not made again in the next few years. Definite action should be taken by the government at the present session with respect to immigration.
Many people in the country are greatly disturbed because of the coldness of the government toward British immigration. The citizens of the British isles have been brought up to believe in the same ideals and the same type of constitutional government as we have. Our soldiers fought side by side for the same way of life. Thousands of young desirable British immigrants are most anxious to come to Canada and sufficient encouragement is not being given them by the present government.


Mr. GLEN:: There is no discrimination against anyone from the old country; the only difficulty is to get transportation to come here.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I shall answer the minister in a moment. I can only refer to the old saying that a horse will starve while it waits for the grass to grow. These young men, many with families, and those who have been demobilized from the armed forces, have been most anxious to come to Canada but are now turning their eyes elsewhere. The same thing is happening today as happened twenty-five years ago after world war I. At that time the young men who were desirous of coming to Canada, went to Australia, New Zealand, Africa and the United States.
It would appear that many people, both in the government and among its supporters, are giving much time and thought to the immigration of new British stock. I am of opinion that it is urgently needed and that something should be said on behalf of the large numbers in the United Kingdom who are intending to emigrate as soon as conditions there wall permit. I believe that now is the important time for this country to show both an interest and a concern that will attract these people as soon as they are able to come.
Let us not forget that England spent millions of dollars in finding homes in Canada for the United Empire Loyalists. Those people settled in the maritimes, along the shores of the St. Lawrence and lake Erie and lake Ontario. Just as those men had the pioneer spirit, so have many of the young men in the United Kingdom who are desirous of living within the empire. All they are asking is an opportunity. Just as we have British preference in trade and commerce, so should we have British preference in immigration. At the top of the list should be those young men of the empire trained in Canada during world war II and who, during that training period, formed such a favourable impression of Canada that they are most anxious to return.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house some figures in the Canada Year Book, 1942. at page 153, showing the arrival of immigrants into Canada between 1920 and 1930. It is interesting to break down and examine the official figures of immigrants who came to Canada during that ten year period. At this point I wish to bring to the attention of the house the figures for 1927, which is only an average year. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the house, rather than read this tabulation I shall place it on the record.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Has the hon. member the consent of the house?


Mr. COLDWELL:: Has the hon. member the details of the deportations to Britain between 1930 and 1940?


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I can tell the hon. member where that can be found.


William Irvine: Put them both on and we will let it go on; otherwise we will not.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: The question is all right, and _ I would refer hon. members to page 1076 of Hansard of last year. At that time the minister was asked to put on the record the admissions and the deportations.

Immigration Act


Major James William Coldwell: Could the hon. member put them on together?


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I think you will find them there. If you are not satisfied, I will exercise my right and read them but it will take a few minutes.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Go ahead.


William Henry Golding: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to put the figures on Hansard!


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: The figures are as follows: Immigrant Arrivals From
United	United	Other	Year	Kingdom	States	Countries	Total1920	.. 75.804	40,188	22,832	138,8241921	... 43,772	23,888	24,068	91,7281922	.. 31,005	17,534	15,685	64,2241923	... 70,110	16.716	46,903	133.7291924	. . 57,612	16,042	50,510	124,1641925	.. 35,362	17,717	31,828	84,9071926	.. 48,819	20.944	66,219	135,9821927	.. 52,940	23,818	82,128	158.8861928	. . 55,848	29,933	81.002	166.7831929	.. 66,801	31,852	66,340	164,9931930	.. 31.709	25,632	47.465	104,806Reference:	The Canada Year Book-1942
(page 153).
The following report shows that out of every three immigrants coming to Canada, only one was British.
Total number of immigrants entering Canada in 1927	 158.884
British	 52,000
United States	 23,818
Belgian	 2.369
Dutch	  2.066
Finnish	 5,054
German	 11,991
Italian	 4.440
Jewish	 4.774
Jugoslav	 1.618
Magyar	 5,781
Polish	 8,248
Ruthenian	 10,836
Scandinavian	 12,000
Slovak	 4,242
Swiss	 681
I should like to say a few words about immigration from Newfoundland. Canada should give every consideration and priority to the citizens of Newfoundland. The majority of Newfoundlanders are today from British stock. They come to Canada for their advanced education, attending Dalhousie, McGill, Queen's or Varsity. A great many of these young citizens then remain in Canada. In the late thirties, because of Canada's discouraging immigration policy, many a young Newfoundlander left for Boston and New York. The result was that they were lost to Canada and the empire. Newfoundlanders who desire to emigrate to Canada should be given every cooperation and priority.
Frequent reference to the subject by prominent men has brought Canada's immigration problem much before the public. Who is to grapple with it? The proportion of British people coming in steadily falls off and people from the continent of Europe are taking their places. Annual reports and annual meetings of various institutions in Canada have dealt with this problem. What is wrong with Canada's immigration policy? For a time the government's policy resulted in bringing into Canada large numbers from Europe whose conditions and background made assimilation difficult, while the movement from the British isles was discouraged with vexatious and petty restrictions.
As far as Canada is concerned, her immigration policy is not a problem of numbers; it is a policy of the possibility and advisability of mixing the old world with the new.
There are few Canadians who will not agree that this country needs more people to help liberate the wealth that lies in its resources, to build up its domestic markets and to make lighter the burdens of its people. We have reached a point in our national progress where the country is better able than it has been for many years to commence to assimilate a number of desirable new citizens. Canada needs them and needs the wealth which the class of people I have in mind would bring and develop.
Here is a plan to provide us with immigration and good citizens:
(a)	Our resources are capable of progressive development and of providing a high standard of living for a greater population, and there is the obligation to provide opportunity for citizenship on equal terms to numbers of kindred-minded people.
(b)	Immigration should be under the direct control of the government without any subsidiary arrangement with private interests.
(c)	With a view to the perpetuation in Canada of a democracy in the British tradition, preference in immigration should be given to those whose political background, intelligence and love of freedom are likely to fit them for such a democracy.
There is need in the dominion of Canada for men who have the pioneer spirit.
Immigration should be on a definite quota system.
All potential immigrants to the dominion of Canada should be required to pass a strict medical examination, including X-ray, at or before reaching the port of embarkation and to comply with such other regulations as may be prescribed from time to time.
The government of today, through its immigration branch, has within its power the
Immigration Act

foundation of Canada's future prosperity. Let us continue to perpetuate British traditions. Let Canada leave no stone unturned in the next few months to extend a welcome to and make possible the entry into Canada of all displaced personnel in the United Kingdom who desire to come.
Let us keep Canada British. The importance of this subject in relation to Canada's future points directly to the necessity of a full-time minister of immigration.
The minister of immigration asked me a question a moment ago about the British coming to Canada. Let me give an illustration. During the war, near Kingston, at Collin's Bay there were 5.000 British lads of the finest British stock within the empire training for the fleet air arm. The father of nearly every one of those boys was an admiral or high-ranking officer in the navy. Two or three hundred of these boys married Canadian girls, and after the war they took their wives home to Britain. Many of them now want to return to Canada. Some of them have children and they want them to be near their grandparents in this country. In addition, there are many single boys and single girls in Britain who want to come to Canada. I recall one instance about which I wrote the minister many times. He replied courteously and has been of great assistance in that case. One young girl from Kingston married an English boy and they had a child. They returned to the old country after the war and now they want to come to Canada. She thought her passage would cost her two or three hundred dollars. She had to wait six months for transportation and then it cost her between five and six hundred dollars. The boy returned by aircraft carrier. That is the finest stock we can bring to Canada and every assistance should be given to them. We are subsidizing the bringing of Poles to this country. I was at a meeting last Monday which had to do with the bringing out of a couple of thousand girls to this country. I claim that they are being subsidized; they are getting free transportation. While subsidizing them and giving them free transportation, we are not doing the same thing for British stock.


James Allison Glen: Does the hon. member say that we are subsidizing them?


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I will not say you are subsidizing them but you are helping to pay their passage. They are coming here free. Their passage is being paid. They are being assisted.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member is leaving the impression that the government is assisting in their passage.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: You are helping to bring out single Poles.


James Allison Glen: No; the British government is doing that.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I put a question on the order paper and the answer was that you paid part of it.


James Allison Glen: The British government is paying the expenses of the transportation of the Poles to Canada.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I think Canada should pay for it. I differ with the minister there. If the Poles are good enough to come to Canada we should let Canada pay for them.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, before giving my observations on the bill, I should like to make a brief reference to what the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) said. While the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) is quite capable of expressing himself in his usual forceful, clear and concise manner and does not need me to come to his defence, I must say that the hon. member for Cariboo placed on exaggerated interpretation upon his remarks. I do not intend to pursue that matter farther, except to say that clarification, if clarification is necessary, will be made by the hon. member himself.
May I now refer to Bill No. 10? When this bill first came before us I could not help but observe the two distinct sections of it, one having to do with the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act, and the other having to do with the provision for the admission to Canada of dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces who have served overseas, without being subject to the provisions of the immigration act. I for one feel, sir, that these two sections should never have been included in one bill. While they are not entirely unrelated, the relationship is so remote that one is put in the position of having to support the two in order to support either one.
There may be some who are not in favour of the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act -let me hasten to assure you, sir, that that is not my position-but in order to register that position effectively the hon. member has to vote against the provision for admission to Canada of those dependents of servicemen. That is cutting a corner pretty sharply, and I feel that it is bad policy for the government, which at all times, I believe, is seeking support, to put us in a position of that kind.
When I first examined this bill I was a bit hesitant about rising and asserting that I was prepared to offer unconditional support to the

Immigration Act
repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. At that time we had not been given any indication whatsoever of government policy relative to immigration. There was enough said to suggest to me that we might be faced with an open-door policy, and I for one was not and am not prepared to support an open-door policy as applied particularly to certain races. Now, sir, in view of the Prime Minister's long overdue, but certainly welcomed, statement of yesterday, I have no particular objection to the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act.
I think the two most significant assertions of .the Prime Minister are found at page 2646 of Hansard, in the first column where he refers to fundamental human rights. He said:
With regard to the selection of immigrants, 1 much has been said about discrimination. I wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right" of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege.
And so on. I shall not quote the rest of the paragraph. I agree wholeheartedly with that expression of opinion. I have sometimes wondered whether we have people in the *country who believe that these persons do have a fundamental human right, as it were, to enter our country in such numbers as they might see fit.
Farther along, the Prime Minister said:
There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large-scale immigration from the orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population. Any considerable oriental immigration would, moreover, be certain to give rise to social and economic problems of a character that might lead to serious difficulties in the field of international relations. The government, therefore, has no thought of making any change in immigration regulations which would have consequences of the kind.
I am prepared to designate these words as words of wisdom; but it will not surprise me at all if the Prime Minister himself is accused of racial discrimination as a consequence of this statement. The expression "racial discrimination" has been bandied about altogether too much to suit me. We know that the communists have adopted the policy of branding all non-communists as fascists. I *actually believe that some in this country are using the expression "racial discrimination" indiscreetly and indiscriminately and for a purpose, and are deliberately creating difficulties among the people in their relationship one
with the other. That may not be very clear, but possibly I have left an indication, at least, of what I am thinking.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that we have two problems: First, we have the problem of displaced persons, the refugees in Europe. I doubt whether there is an hon. member in the house who does not have the greatest of sympathy for those most unfortunate people. It is terrible to be hungry; it is terrible to be without adequate clothing, and it is more terrible to find oneself subjected to all that the elements of winter may offer. It is my personal conviction that Canada, using reason and good judgment, can play an effective part in meeting this great problem. The Prime Minister indicated that Canada is prepared to play its part. I think it is fitting for me to say that among the refugees we have good and bad people. I am sure that among them we have many who understand and appreciate the democratic concept of life. I am sure that among them there must be thousands who have something to contribute toward the general welfare and upbuilding of this great Canada. On the other hand, I am convinced that among them must be many who have no appreciation whatsoever of what democracy means. The fear which I have felt right along is that in the great volume of sympathy which we have within our beings we might be inclined to open our doors wide and say, "Enter". To me that could be one of the most dangerous procedures imaginable. I was, therefore, pleased yesterday when the Prime Minister said that representatives of the immigration branch would proceed to Europe and examine prospective immigrants, with the idea of selecting many of them for entry into this country.
There are many things which one could say about immigration. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that during the thirties, on account of the adverse economic conditions of the period, these provisions were necessarily interpreted in a restrictive manner. He was referring to the general immigration regulations and the increase of admissible persons. He said further, as reported at page 2645 of Hansard:
Because of improved economic conditions, it is now possible to interpret them broadly.
I mention that for this reason. I am not and have not been very happy about the interpretation and administration of the regulations that we now have. I have a number of cases that I intend to use for illustrative purposes, but let me hasten to say that I have always enjoyed splendid cooperation from the immigration authorities with whom I have come in contact from time to time. But they
Immigration Act

seem to be faced with a multitude of regulations, and a double multitude of interpretations. I wonder whether these persons themselves, as honest as they may be, as desirous of serving as they may be, are not somewhat confused. I find a great variance of interpretation between the immigration branch here and the district officers which we have across the country. I suggest to the minister that immediate steps be taken to get some uniformity of interpretation and to get rid of a lot of- I do not know whether this is the proper expression or not-redundant regulations- useless regulations, at least.
Here is a typical example which I bring to the minister's attention. Here is a man approximately forty years of age. He served with distinction in the French forces. Later, he served with great distinction in the French underground forces. He had a brother-in-law in Canada who has farmed here most successfully for a long period of time. This man made application for the admission of his brother-in-law, who is at present in France. The first attempt was that of endeavouring to bring this brother-in-law in as a brother-in-law. That seemed to be fine. Everything went beautifully until suddenly the question was asked, "Where is this man's sister?"- the wife of the farmer who had' made the application. We had to admit that she was dead. Therefore the officials stated, "In view of the fact that she is dead, her husband is no longer the brother-in-law of the prospective immigrant." A most peculiar _ thing! So we thought, "We will get around that," and1 we made application for his entry as a farmer. He was a qualified farmer and had been a successful one until he was deprived of all his properties as a consequence of the war. As I say, we made application for his entry as a farmer. Everything seemed to be just fine until someone said, "Now, has he the money with which to establish himself?" The answer was, "No, but his brother-in-law is prepared to set him up on a quarter-section of land, with buildings, stock and everything, and give him title." We were told, "We are sorry; he must have the money to buy the properties and establish himself."
So, having been beaten there, I said, "Since the brother-in-law of the person whom we are desirous of bringing in is not regarded as a blood relative, we will get his son-the nephew of the prospective immigrant-and have him make application, because he is a blood relative." But no; that was quickly ruled out on the ground that the nephew could not qualify as an applicant under the regulations. I could probably think of a few more things that we were faced with, but the long and

short of it is that this prospective immigrant is still somewhere in France. He is penniless and unable to establish himself because of conditions over which he had no control. That is not just an isolated case. I am not endeavouring to be unduly critical, but I am pointing out exactly what we are faced with. In fact, this statement was made to me, "These immigration regulations are not designed as regulations to permit the entry of immigrants; they are designed as regulations to exclude immigrants." That conclusion is arrived at only as a consequence of the innumerable obstacles which officials seem capable of throwing in your way when you try to procure permits for the entry of a so-called admissible person.
I shall mention just one other case, that of a young Danish lad. He was born in Canada and his parents were successful farmers. In fact I do not know of any who are more successful in the farming line than are the Danish people who have settled in great numbers in my part of Alberta. This lad's parents were highly respected people; they were British subjects. This lad went overseas at the outbreak of the war. He did so in order to see relatives whom he had never before seen. He also went over for the purpose of attending the agricultural college. He was unable to return to Canada. He served until that country to which he went was subjugated. He then entered the underground forces. I may say that he has shown me the documents covering this. While he was serving with the underground forces he married and his wife had two children. He got back about a year ago, but every conceivable type of obstacle has been thrown in the way of his wife's entry into the country; and that boy who is endeavouring to establish himself on a farm, to have a home for his family when they arrive, is now forced to send over S70 or $80 overseas every month in order to provide for his wife and children, unless the case has been solved very recently and I have not been so advised. The last information I had was that he was being bled of Canadian dollars-and incidentally so is the country-in order to maintain his family over there. He could have brought them here, because on two occasions he had air passage arranged for them, but obstacles were thrown in the way. As I say, I want to be perfectly fair. If that case has been solved, I am tickled to death; but if it has I have not been so advised.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer; in fact, there are a couple of other matters. I find upon examination that medical men are not permitted entry into

Immigration Act
this country unless they are British subjects or United States citizens. With the acute shortage of medical doctors in Canada-and I am told that there is now an acute shortage of approximately two thousand-these persons are not regarded as admissible. Not only that, but I am advised on good authority that even during the war many of these medical men who had come over-some just before the war and some early in the war-* were not permitted to engage in the practice of their profession. In fact I am told on good authority that some of them were engaged in the censorship department here in Ottawa, while their services could have been of much more value had they been permitted to practice their profession here. Unless some good reason is given, I believe that these qualified medical doctors should be permitted to enter Canada. After all, we are constantly told that one of the chief obstacles to the establishment of a suitable health programme in Canada is the lack of doctors and as well, of course, the lack of qualified nurses. I hope that the minister will give this matter some consideration.


James Allison Glen: Is there not this feature which enters into the matter? A doctor or medical man coming into Canada must have his licence and must clear himself with the medical association.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is all known by me. I am not asking that a medical man be permitted to enter Canada as a medical man and just simply be given authority to practise without meeting the requirements as determined through examination set by whatever body is responsible for doing that. But you have thrown up that barrier against the medical man as such coming in. He is not qualified as a. farmer. He cannot be regarded as admissible, as nearly as I can determine, under any other section of the Immigration Act. Therefore I feel that a special provision should be made.


James Allison Glen: You are speaking of countries other than the United Kingdom and the United States?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I mentioned earlier that British subjects and United States citizens do qualify. I have in mind, for example, a case which I brought to the attention of the department, and that was one reason why I mentioned this. This young doctor is Swiss; he is now director of the Jimma hospital in Ethiopia. He was in Canada about three or four years ago as a member of a medical mission. As a consequence of meeting a missionary in Africa, whom I know, this man wrote me. I was
told that he could not possibly enter this country. He is a graduate of about four universities. I would not ask that he be brought in, placed in a hospital and told to go to work, or permitted to establish himself in practice somewhere in the country without examination. But I think he should be permitted to enter, write his examinations and, if qualified, given a chance to establish himself here, provided that he is the type of person we should like to have in Canada, quite apart from his professional qualifications.
There is another question which has made me wonder; I have not very strong feelings in connection with it, but I am asking for information. We had a number of Poles brought to Canada. Please do not misunderstand me. Certainly I am not one of those who criticize any person because of his racial origin or religion. I never ask a man what his racial origin is, nor do I ask him what his religious faith is. I take him for what I find him to be, regardless of those other things. I am told that before those Poles came to Canada they were signed up as members of the British army for a period of two years. That came on pretty reliable authority. If that is true, my question is, why? I will just leave it at that point.
I have no great desire to take up much more of the time of the house, but I should like to refer to one more paragraph of the Prime Minister's observations yesterday. At page 2645 of Hansard he said:
The fear has been expressed that immigration would lead to a reduction in the standard of living. This need not be the case. If immigration is properly planned, the result will be the reverse. A larger population will help to develop our resources.
I agree with that.
By providing a larger number of consumers, in other words a larger domestic market, it will reduce the present dependence of Canada on the export of primary products. The essentia] thing is that immigrants be selected with care, and that their numbers be adjusted to the absorptive capacity of the country.
I wish to make just one observation in that connection. Of all that the Prime Minister said, I am less in agreement with that paragraph than any other. If the essence of that statement is correct, why did the United States, with its tremendous population in proportion to area, as compared with Canada, take such a terrific beating during the last depression? Moreover, if that is true, why did we curtail our immigration during the depression years? If that constituted even a partial solution, then I think we should have brought in immigrants in greater numbers, instead of making our policy much more restrictive.
Immigration Act

Mr. H. 0. WHITE (Middlesex East): I should like to take a few moments of the time of the house to refer to this matter of immigration. First, I wish to say I agree with the ideas and ideals expressed by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I do not think I need go over those things he said, with which I am in accord, but for a moment I want to refer to the position of Canada and her need for immigrants. In the past it has been impressed upon many of us that we are a country of vast areas, with a sparse population; and I think it is obvious that we can bring people to this country and give them a higher standard of living than they would have anywhere else in the world, so that they will be quite prepared to pay higher prices for our products than if they remained in their native lands. Something else we can share with them is our national debt; we will gladly divide that up.
I rather resent some things about immigration, and one is the fact that some of those who come to this country bring with them political ideologies which are foreign to the North American continent. It seems to me that when they are so anxious to come here they should be prepared to accept our ideas and ideals in regard to government. I would be quite prepared to accept, as I believe we as Canadians would be prepared to accept, a quota system for those who wish to come to this country from Asia. As for the so-called Chinese Exclusion Act, I think we should bring that legislation up to date in such a way that we shall be treating these people in a humane and friendly manner, to right the wrong that has been done in the past. In the city of London we have a Chinese family by the name of Wong, to whom I should like to refer. In that family are eight children, of whom three are doctors; one is now at Osgoode Hall, a member of the legal profession, while the remaining four are in business in London. They are among the very finest of our citizens.
The hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Kidd) mentioned the drift of our young people to the United States. That is to be regretted. It seems to me that we are losing the cream of our crop and bringing in the skim milk, and I doubt if we are to improve very much our position in this way. It is evident that something is wrong when these young people leave our country and go elsewhere. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) mentioned that immigrants were brought in. That is not my understanding. They come to this country of their own free will; they are clamouring to come here. They are not brought

in; blit when they do come they should be quite prepared to accept our laws and regulations.
One hon. member said something about enemy aliens. In western Ontario we had a good number of prisoners of war working on farms, and I have had many individual farmers come to me wondering how they could have those men returned to them. Since losing the prisoners of war, some of these farmers have had Polish veterans working for them, and they are quite prepared to take back their prisoners of war and help them become established in this country. I have also met delegations of farmers who were quite prepared to take prisoners of war and so-called enemy aliens. I have neighbours who have been in this country for twenty-five years, originally coming from Hungary. They have relatives in Hungary who are now destitute and hungry, but they are classed as enemy aliens and cannot be admitted to this country. I think it is much easier to make democratic people out of them by bringing them to this country than by keeping them starving in Europe.
The Polish veterans have been mentioned, and I should like to state this fact. While I was home last week, I went to the Department of Labour in London, where I was told that, of the 122 Poles placed through the London labour office, fifty-one have left the farms on which they were originally placed, and that some of them have moved two and even three times. So that in this question of immigration we face quite a problem. Also only the other day I was told that one of these Polish soldiers had married, that he has a family and that he is applying for family allowance. I was wondering what the status of his wife and the child would be.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my remarks with a short description of the activities of certain young Canadian-born Chinese who, in 1944, volunteered1 for service in the Pacific. The majority of these young men came from British Columbia, and I give this illustration, because I believe it is indicative of the spirit of the Canadian Chinese.
These boys-they were little more than youths-were trained in the most hazardous of all operations, that of acting as saboteurs behind the enemy lines. They were taken to a remote part of British Columbia, and there were taught how to use explosives, how to speak various dialects of the Chinese language, and were also given a smattering of Japanese. They received a most intensive six months special training.

Immigration Act
I was one of a few people who went to visit these young men while they were being trained.
I remember sitting around a camp fire one summer evening discussing with them the future of the operations they would be undertaking. One topic of conversation to which they invariably returned was that, while they were pleased to do this work and to take chances for Canada and for China, they did hope that when the war was over they would be recognized as full Canadian citizens, and given the franchise.
I am pleased to remind the house that the government of British Columbia has given the franchise not only to these young men but to all Canadian-born Chinese. These men went to the far east and carried out with distinction the tasks assigned to them. The majority of them have returned. I am pleased to say I have received communications from them reporting on how they dad their work, and how they are now reestablishing themselves in the life of the community.
Only last month I received a letter from one of these men who asked' if he might continue his service to Canada, and might be given an opportunity of joining one of the reserve army units, in order that he might pass on to other young Canadians-perhaps other young Canadians of Chinese extraction -some of the experiences he had had, and what he had learned while he was in Asia.
I am pleased to say I wrote the officer commanding the district, giving him the name of this young man, and that only today I received a letter in reply, saying that this young Canadian-born Chinese is to ibe given an opportunity of joining one of the reserve regiments.
I bring this matter to the attention of the house as an indication of the desire of these young men to become Canadian citizens. Anyone who has had any experience in connection with victory loan campaigns and Red Cross drives will know that the Chinese living in Canada have set an inspiring example for other sections of the community in their generosity in those drives, as well as in promoting their own drives to assist Canada.
I believe I am speaking for a large section of the population of British Columbia when I say we admire and respect the Chinese. We dislike seeing placed upon them any restrictions which might be considered inhumane or -which would not apply to other sections of the population. We bear in mind the fact that only a small proportion of the male Chinese living in British Columbia have their wives with them. It is unfortunate for them, and is a source of irritation; and perhaps there is a feeling almost of disgrace when it is remembered that for so long a time it has not been possible for these men, who have been in Canada for many years, to bring their wives to this country.
The majority of the male Chinese on Vancouver island are men who are now past middle age. They have performed humble work for many years, without having the comfort of their wives and families, except for short periods of time when they have gone back to China. Therefore I think I am correct in saying that the majority of people in British Columbia would like to see that handicap removed from these Chinese men, now that they are becoming citizens of Canada.
But we have to be practical in the matter, and we must realize how many Chinese males whose wives are living outside Canada there are in the country. The latest figures for British Columbia show that there are some 13,174, whereas in all of Canada there are some 23,556. If these Chinese male residents in Canada were allowed to bring in their wives and their dependent children under the age of eighteen, according to the present regulations only a small number-about 8,000 of them-who are Canadian citizens, would be permitted to bring in their families. But the remainder are eligible for Canadian citizenship, and I presume the vast majority of them will accept the opportunity of becoming Canadian citizens. Therefore we may see coming to Canada, if the doors are thrown wide open, not a few hundred Chinese ladies and their children, but several thousand of them, perhaps no less than 40,000, which, I believe, would not be an extreme figure at which to place it.
I suggest that it would be utterly impracticable for us in British Columbia to absorb anything like that number of Chinese females at the present time. The majority of the Chinese live in the cities. Only a comparatively few live in the country, although there are some market gardeners on the outskirts and a certain number of men work in the logging camps and sawmills. But, as I say, the majority of those who have families live in the cities, and Chinatown in Victoria and Chinatown in Vancouver are terribly overcrowded at the present time and could not absorb any additional population. Where are we to house this large number of Chinese women and children if they are permitted to come here? Every school on Vancouver island is overcrowded at the present time. Reference was made earlier in this debate to medical services. Very few of the Chinese in this country at the present time belong to the professional classes, and therefore the care of any large number of Chinese wives
Immigration Act

and children who might come to this country would be an added burden upon our already overtaxed medical and dental and teaching services.
I feel that we must ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to give the people of British Columbia some assurance that there will not be a flood tide of these wives and children into the country. I was heartened by a sentence in his statement yesterday when he said that it is of the utmost importance to relate immigration to the absorptive capacity. I w'ould ask that that statement be applied to the Chinese families who may come in as soon as this act is repealed and to the additional number who would be allowed to come in as soon as Chinese residents take out their citizenship papers.
I should like the government to have a vivid picture of the Chinatowns in our coast cities and to realize that it will be a disgrace to this country if a large number of Chinese come here and are thrown into these already overcrowded slum conditions. I hope it will be possible to limit the entry of wives of Chinese who are here to those that can be absorbed readily. This may impose a little hardship on Chinese in this country who may have to wait a little while longer for their wives to come here, but I think it would be a wise and judicious policy to limit the families coming in to a trickle until such time as accommodation can be made available for them.


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) and I took part in a ceremony in Winnipeg at which we were presented with citizenship certificates. They were presented at the same time to representatives of other ethnic groups in Canada. On that occasion the minister made a speech which I applauded when he sat down-a speech upon which I now congratulate him. If my memory serves me aright, he said that he and we others who were with him had a great advantage over other Canadians in so far as we had chosen to come to this country, while those who were born in Canada were here entirely by accident. I know I chose deliberately to come to this country. It was a land of hope; it was in the western hemisphere, the hemisphere to which the peoples of the world are looking for leadership and guidance. Through the years that I have been here my pride in Canada has steadily grown and each time something has happened to hurt that pride I have felt practically a physical bruise.
[Mr. Pearkes.J
There is in this bill a principle at stake, a great principle of human justice. On other occasions I have charged the government with discrimination in connection with certain of its immigration regulations and orders but, after discussion and correspondence with the minister, I am now convinced that that discrimination no longer exists. I congratulate the minister and the government upon that state of affairs. But in this bill we have a certain type of discrimination. I should like to remind the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) of what he said yesterday, and I quote from page 2646 of Hansard:
This does not mean, however, that we should not seek to remove from our legislation discrimination which appears to be objectionable.
I feel that Chinese residents as such are discriminated against, and that is something which hurts the good name of Canada in the world at large. Yesterday my colleague and roommate, the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke), came back from New York where, along with other members of parliament, he had attended the meetings of the united nations. He came back filled with jubilation at the knowledge that Canada's name stood high among the nations of the world. We do not want to do anything which will tarnish or sully that name; yet we risk that by placing Chinese residents on a different level from that of other residents in Canada.
I ask the government most earnestly to reconsider its position. After all. in effect what difference will it make if we give to Chinese residents the same rights given to other residents? We can assume, I think, that many of these Chinese residents will take out their citizenship papers when they find out they can bring their wives and children to this country. It is merely a matter of postponing, perhaps for a few months or a year or two, the time when their relatives would .come to this country. For the sake of a year or two I do not think it is worth risking having our representatives at the united nations held up to the scorn of other nations. We accepted certain obligations under the charter and we have to fulfil them. I ask the government to reconsider this matter and put Chinese residents of Canada on exactly the same basis as other residents.
I agree substantially with what the Prime Minister said yesterday and there is only one comment I wish to make, one which I made the other day. This concerns refugees in the displaced persons camps in Europe. Anyone in this house who has had anything at all to do with these people, anyone who has read the stories concerning them must realize how

Immigration Act
desperate is their position. Many of them have only hope left, and if they are not going to be given something to bolster up that hope I hesitate to think what may happen. To give them additional hope I repeat the suggestion I made. The teams which are going over to Europe to examine potential immigrants could examine these people and if they come within the rules or regulations they could be given a visa or a letter, some document which would let them know that eventually we would be prepared to take them into Canada. Obviously we cannot do so now, because we have been told repeatedly about the difficulties of transportation. but at least we can give them that hope which they need so desperately. If we do that we shall have gone far toward fulfilling our obligations to these dreadfully unfortunate people.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the importance of the refugee problem and that it is a difficult one to handle. I have one suggestion to make with regard to the refugees, and that is that it might be well to bring in certain family groups of them who are known to have democratic tendencies. That would make it easier for them to work out their own destinies here.
I understand that about 100,000 applications have been made to Ontario House in London by British people for permission to come to Canada. I have a recollection that the Right Hon. Winston Churchill said not long ago that there were 6,000,000 people too many in Great Britain at the present time, and I have no doubt that the more people from Great Britain that we took into Canada, the more we should ease the hardships which they are experiencing today with respect to the shortage of food. It would mean just that many less to feed in Great Britain, and, further, they are the right kind of people we want in this country. We should give the people of Great Britain who bore the brunt of battle for so many years alone the preference in coming to this country. Very few people in Canada who have not been over to the old country realize the terrible hardships with which they have to put up today, and I can certainly say, from letters that I receive from Great Britain, that conditions there are pretty grim. For all these reasons I think we should do everything we can to give the British priority in coming to Canada.
I wanted to speak particularly on the question of Chinese immigration. I have in my riding a great number of Chinese. There are quite a few of them in the city of Toronto
and in the province of Ontario. I have known some of these Chinese intimately. I was connected with the Chinese war relief fund, and I know how much the average Chinaman in this country and especially in Toronto sacrificed in order to send relief to the people of his own country. We must not forget that China was at war for many years before world war II and that conditions in that country are still by no means settled, and we should give the Chinese every consideration. I never met a finer man in my life than Chong Ying of the city of Toronto. Some years before the war he wanted to bring his boy over here but it could not be done. That was a great disappointment to him. He is the head of the Chinese in the city of Toronto. Now he is an older man. There is another very fine Chinaman I know, Ernie Mark, and many others. Ernie worked hard and is still working hard collecting money in Canada to send relief to China. There are many others I know who are very fine people indeed, kindly, loyal to Canada and highly respected.
In my city many Chinese who have married do not live in Chinatown but have places of their own around the city. I think that is much better than living all together in a congested area. We should do everything we can to help out the Chinese who are here now.
A great deal has been said about the Chinese in Canada. According to the 1941 census, there were 34,627, of whom 30,713 were males and 3,914 were females. I suppose there are more now. But the point I wish to make is that eighty-two per cent of these Chinese in Canada are over forty years of age. While they might bring out their wives, I doubt that' they could bring out their families because their children would now be over twenty years of age. No Chinaman has been allowed to return from Canada to China since 1931, so that their children in China must now be over twenty years of age, and I do not think there is any danger of having a large influx of Chinese families. Again, sixty per cent of the Chinese in Canada are over fifty years of age. This makes it clear that there is not much danger of a large immigration of Chinese families to this country.
We asked the Chinese to come to Canada and welcomed them here, and so far as the Chinese in my own city are concerned, I know them to be very fine citizens. One of their difficulties is that they are forced, under present conditions, to live unnatural and abnormal lives, being practically forced to live a life of celibacy in congested areas. If they
Private Bills

had their wives with them they probably would not live in the centre of Toronto but would move out into house? of their own.
It is almost six o'clock and I should like to give just a few more figures before I sit down. In the metropolitan area of Toronto there are 2,559 Chinese, of whom 2,275 are males and 284 are females. I have not the number of Chinese born in Canada, but the figures I have just given include a great many children who were born in this country. I just wanted to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to speak of the kindness and loyalty of the Chinese I have known and to put these figures on the record.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 59, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company-Mr. Reid-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Capital stock.
Mr. GREEN:: I have no intention of opposing this bill. The British Columbia Telephone Company are applying under the bill for permission to increase their capital from $11 million to $25 million. There is no doubt that they are faced with a great need for more expansion. I have clipped out of the paper received today from British Columbia a large advertisement by the company headed, "Report on the Telephone Situation." It goes on to apologize to the people who have applied for telephones but are unable to get them. It tells them why it is impossible to make these installations at the present time. There is no doubt that the company will have to put in a great many thousand new telephones and will require a great deal of money to do so.
However, I think there should be some assurance given to the committee, by the hon. member for New Westminster who is sponsoring the bill, to the effect that there is not to be an application for an increase in rates. That has always concerned me when bills of this type come before the house. In this case, where there is a big increase in capital, I think it is essential that some protection should be given to telephone users of British Columbia. I understand that the hon. member has been authorized to give assurance to

the effect that the company has no present intention of applying for an increase of rates and will not make any such application unless compelled to do so by extensive changes in conditions.


Mr. REID:: That is my definite understanding.


Howard Charles Green: That assurance is clearly worded and contains a statement to the effect that an application will not be made unless the company is compelled to do so and then only by reason of extensive changes in conditions. If the hon. member for New Westminster is prepared to give that assurance on behalf of the British Columbia Telephone Company I for one shall have no objection to the bill passing.


Thomas Reid: I am authorized to do so, and it is my definite understanding.


William Irvine: I just wish to bring to the attention of the committee a point which I raised in the standing committee when this bill was before it. The hon. member who is piloting this bill through the committee gave us a good outline of the project, and explained it very well. The point that I wish to bring to the attention of the committee and to the sponsor of the bill is the great need which is apparent in the rural sections of British Columbia for a further expansion of service. Of course the capital which has been provided by this legislation might well be used for that purpose or it might not; and it is in order that we may have some assurance that it will be used, in part at least, for extending the service in the rural districts, especially in the central and northern sections of the province, that I now rise.
The British Columbia Telephone Company is already well established in the better settled sections of the province, where, of course, a telephone system would pay better than it would in sparsely settled districts. It is so well established that in these points it virtually has a monopoly of the best section of the country; and unless it is an unusual type of corporation, it will not expend any more money than it can help in sections of the community which do not pay very well. That is only a natural thing for us to expect from a company which is, like all other companies, in the business for the profits that may be made as well as for services that may be rendered.
I should like to have some assurance that it will not continue to confine the expenditures of its newly authorized1 capital to communities which are already fairly well served,

Private Bills
but that it will extend its services to communities which have none. Of course I believe that a telephone system should be a public utility; that the provincial government should have taken over the whole service. But that is a matter for the provincial government and the people of British Columbia; we cannot deal with it here. We are asked to allow this company to carry on its business and extend its capital sufficiently to be able to do so; but the public should have some protection. The last section of the bill, for example, which gives the only protection that is given reads:
The company shall not have power to make any issue, sale or other disposition of its capital stock or any part thereof, without first obtaining the approval of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada of the amount, terms or conditions of such issue, sale or other disposition of such capital stock.
There is some control over the issuance of its stock, but apparently there is no control of the company's action in regard to what particular project the stock will be issued about. Therefore it might very well neglect almost entirely the rural communities which need services so badly.
It goes without saying that, in certain sections of British Columbia, the population is sparsely settled, and that in such districts it would not be a very good paying proposition for a private company to build telephone lines. Nevertheless the service should be an over-all proposition, so that the company may make up in the well settled portions of the communities what it might lose in the more sparsely settled. There ought to be some measure of protection in the public interest in respect of the company's operations.


Thomas Reid: As pointed out by the hon. member, he did bring forward that very matter when the bill was before the committee. At that time I gave him, quite naturally, all the assurance that I could.
The application which is before us at the present time is due particularly to the great demand by commercial business and people in the lower mainland, but it is not complete with them unless telephones are taken out into the country and into the district which the hon. member represents. Unfortunately the head of the company fell sick and could not be here. But I have been given assurance that the very matter referred to is to receive the personal attention and keen interest of the head of the company in the light of the suggestion made by the hon. member, so that, if possible, service will be given.


Mr. CHURCH:: As a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines I attended the hearing on this particular bill. I wish to raise some questions regarding the way in which these bills are considered.
This bill is not a private bill; it is a public bill which affects everybody in Canada. Do not forget this: we had a long fight with the Bell Telephone Company, a public utility, here in 1927.
In the first place, I take objection to the way in which we are considering these private bills. These should be reported by the committee reporters, so that the members of the House of Commons will have some evidence of what the bill is all about. We do not now know anything about it. We report divorce bills in both houses; I should probably say in this house and another house. I do not know whether I should call the other one a house or not, because they are away at times. What I want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, is that this is no way for consideration to be given public bills like this one is.
British Columbia, which I last visited in 1927, has been a happy hunting-ground for many years not only for light, but for power, transportation, telephone and other companies.
I want to refer to this telephone company mentioned in the first clause of the bill, and I will show you who they are. They are an American trust; that is what they are. They found British Columbia a happy hunting-ground. In 1909 we in our city had a big fight and I myself had to take the case to the railway commission before the late Mr. Justice Mabee. There was a difference in the telephone rates in our city; part was the old city as far north as Bloor street and the new city practically north of Bloor street. In the new city the company were charging $132 for business telephones and $82 in Deer Park near Mount Pleasant cemetery. They would probably have put us all in there if they had kept on. After the city council decided not to take any action on the application, I myself applied to the railway commission on behalf of all the telephone users in the Toronto district. What was the result? After bearing evidence from electricians and other people for eight weeks, the chairman said he had learned more in the last ten or fifteen minutes when I pointed out. to him that the principle of the telephone was only that of pole and wire. I pointed out that it did not cost any more for water because you were farther away from the pumping station and that it did not cost any more for gas because you were farther away from the gas station, or for your electric light because you were farther away from the power house, and I asked why it should cost more for your telephone which is simply a. pole and ware principle. The chairman marked it down, and I want tossy that just now somebody has sent me a.
Private Bills

note asking me to make my remarks short. I will just continue my remarks as long as I like.
In 1909 the city of Toronto applied to Ottawa and came down to the railway committee. What we proposed was to place all these telephone and express companies under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada under the Railway Act. We, the representatives of the municipalities, were simply howled down, such is the influence these companies had and such was the lobby they had here then at Ottawa, before a committee set up to consolidate the Railway Act. Now you are doing business in a different way. You are afraid to tell the public what is going on. In this case there is no written evidence of what happened before the railway committee of the House of Commons, or any report on it. They might as w^ell have met in private. There was not a single reporter there, as was the case with another bill the other day. But you have a report of divorce cases that do not affect the consumer. I could, if I liked, go back home and not bother my head about this; but I do it because I am here to protect the interests of the public. I did not come to Ottawa to advance my own interests. I came to Ottawa as a sacred trust. I came here to try to do something for the ordinary working people of the country and advance their best interests. I do not expect to get anything out of it under the party system, nor do I ask for anything.
I will tell you one thing on this particular question. I visited the province of British Columbia in 1927-and I will be through in seven or eight minutes now-and it was then the happy hunting-ground for company promoters like this one. It is the richest province in water powers, but the rates there were then prohibitive. I do not know how the small farmer got along then. He had not his light in his barn as we had then in Ontario. It is the richest province in water power, and in some places the water was not fit to drink then. I may say that in 1927 the rates for water were two or three times what our rates were, and not only those, but for light and power and the telephone rates; they may have marked them down now. They want us to increase their capital stock from $11 million to S25 million. I am not complaining about the rates. It is the people who pay the rates; I do not pay them. British Columbia is the richest province in water power I have ever seen, but they have been a long time in doing much about a hydro system for light and power, and the same is true with the telephone.

I come now to the principle of the bill. This company is part of an American trust, a subsidiary of one. I am reading now from "Moody's Manual of Investments." As to the history of this company, it used to be called the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company. I may say that it would not be necessary for me to read all this if the committee's proceedings were recorded, but the committee do not know anything about it; I mean our present committee. You never had it reported. You do not know who they are. They can come here and apply for anything. We do not know anything about it. We just pass the bill. It is called as a private bill. How are we to know about it? How am I to go back and explain why I voted away public rights like this?
The history of this company is as follows:
Incorporated in Quebec December, 1934. As of APrd 16, 1935, acquired all the assets of the National Telephone and Telegraph Corporation which was incorporated in Delaware, December 7, 1926, as British Columbia Telephone and Telegraph Company.
It is a subsidiary of a large American trust.
Business:	company has investment in companies which operate telephone exchanges in British Columbia and the Dominican republic.
Properties: a subsidiary, British Columbia Telephone Company, company operates without competition sixty-four telephone exchanges and 163,135 telephones, serving a population in excess of 500,000, including the metropolitan areas of Vancouver and Victoria. Other subsidiaries operate 5,320 telephones, serving various municipalities throughout British Columbia.
Then they go on to give the United States companies. Then they formed, by act of parliament, the British Columbia Telephone Company which is controlled by the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company, a subsidiary of the American trust, associated telephone and telegraph system. The capital structure is set out here and also the history which is as follows:
Incorporated in Canada in 1916 as Western Canada Telephone Company; name changed to above-
British Columbia Telephone Company.

November, 1919. In 1923, acquired business and assets of British Columbia Telephone Company Limited incorporated in 1891 as Vernon and Nelson Telephone Company; name changed in 1903; acquired Provincial Company and Delta Telephone Company. In 1929, acquired Fort George and Alberta Telephone Company, East Kootenay Telephone Company and Chilliwack Telephone Company.
Then as to management, the directors were largely American, although there are some Canadians. Under "property" we find this:
Owns and operates over 97 per cent of all the telephones in British Columbia, including

Private Bills
the entire system of the metropolitan areas of the cities of Vancouver and Victoria, and owns all of its exchange buildings and sites in connection therewith. Also owns and operates an extensive long distance system, including four submarine cables from the mainland to Vancouver island connecting with the city of Victoria. Lines also connect with the western terminus of the Trans-Canada Telephone Sytsem. Company conducts its business under powers contained in its charter and without necessity of local or special franchises.
Now we come to the operating revenue which is given as follows:
1939		 $5,794,023
1940		 6.050,009
1941		 6.547,552
1942		 7.166.620
1943		 7,755,871
1944		 8.136.621
1945		 8,723,801
You do not notice any net profit of $11 million. Here is what it is. For the last year of record the net profit is $1,324,979 and it came up from $1,297,384 in 1939. The figures for net profit as given here are:
1939		 $1,297,384
1940		 1,222,337
1941		 1.361,350
1942		 1,363.060
1943		 1.273.038
1944		 1,280,351
1945		 1,324,979
Mind you, I am not objecting to the people of British Columbia doing as they please about this. It is none of my business, after all, but this company has been placed under federal control. While I appreciate what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and others in his party, as well as some of my own party, have done in this connection, it is not for me to say what should be done under the bill. I have not time to go over the balance sheets, the liabilities and assets of this company. I do not want to talk out anybody's bill; I am not that kind of man, but I do object to the way this bill is drawn up. Now they want to obtain an increase in capital from $11,000,000 to $25,000,000. Somebody is going to cut up a pretty nice melon. I think hon. members would have to go away down to Mexico or some other place to get a melon as juicy as that. Not many years ago the Bell Telephone Company came along and cut up a melon amounting to $75,000,000, and the people of Ontario had to pay for most of it. At that time, if you had one share you got a nice split also of new shares, and no doubt the same procedure will be followed here later on. I do not know whether the hon. gentlemen to my left have any melons like that to cut up. There is very little money in the real melons they import in North Toronto, which sell at- forty or fifty cents each. This is the juiciest telephone melon I have ever seen.	[DOT]
What does this company do? They apply to the senate and to our railway committee. No reporters are there, and very few members; the bill might just as well have been considered in private. We have an important meeting like that going on and hardly a line appears in the house for the public who will have to pay for it. I am not here to criticize the press at all; I have found that it does no good. Y'ou can never answer a newspaper, as they always have the last word. However I do complain about the way we are doing our business. Here the railway committee has given this company power to obtain another $14,000,000. When we get away up in amounts like that the figures become astronomical. I do not know that I can say much more about the bill, but I object to all these profits. We do not know anything much about, this bill or this company; yet we are asked to support it. Among the directors you will find some of the very same people who served an American trust so faithfully and well in these two subsidiary companies, American-owned. Many of the directors and shareholders of these companies live in the United States, in Delaware and almost every other state of the union. They include all kinds of people; I cannot find their names and addresses at the moment. They come over to Canada and find things very easy over here. They got away with a stock increase of $75 million in 1927 in the province of Ontario. Only one or two members would sit here for the whole evening, night after night, in an attempt to prevent the Bell Telephone Company from increasing its capital stock by of $75,000,000 in 1927 in the province of up the melon by a big split of shares. They got away with it then and they are going to get away with it now because of the way we do business. We have no records or reports before us. We do not keep records. We have records concerning divorce cases and everything else, but we cannot afford to spend the money to keep records in connection with a great public utility like this.
In Ontario, since we have taken light, heat and power away from the control of people like these and given it to the Hydro, the rates have been reduced three or four times, and the same thing could be done in regard to telephone rate service. This company got an extra million dollars in capital in 1941, only a few years ago, and they did not spend or use it all. They probably put it aside. We do not know whether they sold the shares; we could not get any information. Last year the operating revenue of this company was $9,628,000, while the net profit was $716,544, according to the report submitted to
Private Bills

the annual meeting last year. Mind you, they are probably giving good service at fair rates now; I believe that is particularly true in connection with long distance service; but the minute you give them $25,000,000, just see what will happen. They say there will be no increase in rates for a while, but wait and see. That was one of the reasons we had to make a change in connection with certain public utilities some years ago. We were asked to place the express companies and telephone companies under the control of the railway commission. At that time the chairman was Mr. Justice Mabee, a brilliant man who was appointed .by hon, gentlemen opposite. He brought down the rates in Toronto from $82 to $32, for a flat rate for Greater Toronto. Business telephones had been paying $132, and he cut that rate for a flat rate for the whole down to $52 and made them get along with the revenue they obtained. That applied all over that district, north, south, east and west. No wonder they applied for a big capital increase; next year they came here and wanted $75,000,000 in capital. So I say this is the juiciest melon I ever saw. Talk about the Montreal melon you used to be able to buy in the stores; it was never in it with what these people can do. All Ontario had to pay for that little deal, and then the stock was split splendidly. It is too bad hon. members did not have some of that stock; they would make more money than by sitting here talking of a bill about which we know nothing.
I do not think I need say anything more. We might just as well give them the title deed of the house, and I warn you, Mr. Chairman, to nail down the. parliament buildings before they get through. I saw the Beauharnois boys in the building today. Then the other night over in another branch, in a place down the hall, they were going to give a bill second reading before it was even printed. That was in the chamber of the saints everlasting rest in another part of this building.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Coming from a district in the interior of British Columbia which has a considerable interest in this bill because it has a large number of telephone users, I [DOT]wish to say a few words. Before proceeding to do so, however, I must say that, after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview this evening, I can see that party changing its name in the near future from Progressive Conservative to Socialist Conservative.
The bill before us requests authority to increase the capital of this company to take care of necessary expansion. This company has almost a monopoly in British Columbia.

I do not object to that, because in the first place I believe that telephone service and public utilities generally can be carried on satisfactorily only on the basis of monopoly or near monopoly, if you want to have efficient administration, to keep down costs and to provide good service for the public. Let me say at once that I stand for the principle of public ownership, and wish this were a public monopoly instead of a private monopoly, but we have not reached that point yet, and we have to face the situation as it is.
This is virtually a private monopoly seeking an enlargement of its capital to serve the people of British Columbia. When it comes to the question of giving any monopoly rights and privileges we have to be very careful to protect the public, because in the case of a monopoly the customers have no choice. For many years I have been a customer of the British Columbia Telephone Company, together with a good many of my neighbours and constituents. I may say that in the past this company, like many other large corporations in Canada, has had what I consider very poor public relations. In the first place, it has covered the larger places and, in my opinion, has often ignored the smaller ones. The result has been that the smaller places have had to get along with much less service, and a less efficient service.
In addition to that, in my opinion, in past years its public relations were poor. But companies of this type, like many others in Canada, are now learning and making progress in that direction. They are realizing that the public of this country are not going to put up with that kind of treatment. I believe that during the last few years there has been a great improvement in the public service, and in the public relations of the company. I believe it must have some new officials, and some more progressive minded administrators.
In my district there has been a considerable expansion of service taking place, and some improvement in the service for the small communities. I understand that some of this money is required to improve the service in the rural areas. I have been careful in going into this matter and have listened to the presentation of the bill by the hon. member for New Westminster. Then, I have asked questions; and in view of my careful inquiry and my personal knowledge of the situation in the interior of British Columbia, coupled with the assurance given this evening by the hon. member for New Westminster to the hon. member for Vancouver South concerning rates, and knowing the need for an expansion

Private, Hillx
at this time of the telephone service in the interior of British Columbia, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the bill; because we are living under a capitalistic system and this capital is required to expand the telephone services so urgently needed by that section of the public I represent.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, it will be remembered that in 1941 or 1942 the British Columbia Telephone Company made application here for an increase in capital to the extent of $10 million. Because of the war, and the likelihood that an issue of that kind would interfere with the raising of money for the war, the increase granted was cut down to $1 million, which I believe the company has never used.
So that while I, too, favour public ownership of an institution of this kind, I am not opposing the bill, because there is no alternative in the province of British Columbia to the British Columbia Telephone Company. I am quite satisfied that it badly needs this new capital.
May I say, with all due regard for the sponsor of the bill, that I do not place much faith or reliance in the statement that no increase in rates will be applied for. My own opinion is that it is almost inevitable that, as the company expands its business with this new capital, and serves more customers, an increase in rates will be asked for. The only protection we have is that any increase in rates will have to be approved by the board of transport commissioners. So that I am supporting this, in so far as it needs my support, with my eyes open in that respect.
I do not think this committee paid sufficient attention to what was said by the hon. member for Broadview. The telephone business on the North American continent is a huge monopoly. As the hon. member for Broadview said, the British Columbia Telephone Company is controlled entirely by the Anglo-Canadian Telephone Company. And it, in turn, is controlled by the Associated Telephone and Telegraph Company of Wilmington, Delaware. In the last analysis, these are the people who will determine what will be done.
The Bell Telephone Company and the Associated Telephone and Telegraph Company of Wilmington, Delaware, control, between them, the whole of the telephone business on the North American continent. The Bell Telephone Company controls in the United States and1 in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, while the Associated Telephone and Telegraph Company controls in British Columbia, South America and Philippine islands. This, then, is no small business, and we should keep these things clearly in mind
when we are dealing with this matter. However I am satisfied that the company needs the capital for which it is now asking; at least it needs some of it. Perhaps it will need it all in the next ten years.
I notice that the city council of Vancouver has examined the bill and, if it has not given its approval, at least it has offered no opposition. In regard to the matter of the application for increasing rates, it will be noticed that in the amending bill of 1941 section 6 (3) said:
No application for increase of the rates shall be based on any increase of the issued stock of the company as authorized by the amending act of 1941. but this provision shall not apply to or limit the power of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada (or any successors to its powers), to fix just and reasonable rates upon application by the company for increased rates based on other grounds.
That section is deleted from the present bill.
The city of Vancouver, referring to that, said this:
We have also considered the company's application to repeal subsection (3) of section 6 added to the company's charter in 1941. Having regard to modern principles of rate making, we think the section is of little importance either to the city or to the company. As, however, it was apparently added to the act with the intention of serving as a measure of protection to the company's subscribers, we make no recommendation on the application with respect to it.
And further on they say:
Our recommendation is that the company be notified that the city has no objection to the amendment by which it seeks to increase its authorized capital from $11 million to $25 million, subject always to the approval of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada to the issue, sale or other disposition of such stock or any part thereof.
And, for myself, I say, "To the approval of the board of transport commissioners in the matter of rates." As I have said, I am not opposing the bill. I shall vote for it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. 106, to incorporate Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company-Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Golding in the chair.
William Henry Golding: When this bill was last considered we had reached section 7.
On section 7

Line of railway described.


Clarence Gillis: Like everyone else who has been talking about private bills this evening,
Private Bills

it is not my intention to hold up this bill. Nevertheless that is the effect it has. The last time we discussed this bill I was one of those who were not satisfied with its going through without our being given an explanation of the wide and sweeping powers contained therein. I suggested at that time that I should like to have an assurance from the hon. member who is piloting the bill through the house that this is a Canadian company, that it is not a subsidiary of some company in the United States. I should like him to tell the committee the personnel of the board of directors, whether they are Canadians, whether they are tangled up with other interlocking companies in Canada and the United States.
Next, I should like either the hon. member or the Minister of Transport to tell the committee why it is necessary to set aside three sections of the Railway Act in order to set up this railway company.


Mr. RINFRET:: The hon. member's first question was with reference to sweeping powers. There has been some talk about these sweeping powers, but I am afraid there has been some confusion between this company and the one which has obtained from some government concessions or leases in connection with natural resources in the northern part of Quebec and in Labrador. The company which has obtained concessions or leases from the provincial government is a distinct entity from this railway company.
The company which obtained the concessions and leases is the Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited, and I can assure the hon. member that that is practically a wholly owned Canadian company. A total of 9,768 shareholders residing in Canada hold 3,913,084 shares; 2,063 shareholders residing in the United States hold 495,470 shares; 39 shareholders residing in the United Kingdom hold 5,571 shares and 306 shareholders residing elsewhere hold 505,875 shares. The shareholders residing in Canada represent 80 per cent of the total shareholders and they hold 79-5 per cent of the 4,920,000 shares outstanding.
The directors of this company are Mr. Jules Timmins, Montreal; Mr. Leo Timmins, Montreal; Mr. Murdoch, Toronto; Mr. John I. Rankin, Montreal; Mr. Allen A. McMartin; Mr. N. A. Timmins, Montreal; Mr. D. N. Dunlap, Toronto; Mr. Alphonse Raymond, Montreal; Mr. T. Waite, Toronto. I think that answers the questions asked by the hon. member.


Clarence Gillis: I asked why it was necessary to set aside three sections of the Railway Act in order to legalize this company.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: To what section is the hon. member referring?


Clarence Gillis: To section 9.


Lionel Chevrier: We are on section 7, but perhaps I could answer the hon. member's question. I shall not deal specifically with section 9, because reference is made to this in other sections as well. This is a bill to incorporate a railway company to construct a railroad from a point on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river to a point in northern Quebec and it must be subject to the terms of the Railway Act. The operations of this railway must be subject to the jurisdiction of some board, which in this case happens to be the board of transport commissioners. Section 368 of the Railway Act provides that a company seeking the powers set out in section 11 of this bill, namely, to generate, acquire, use, transmit and distribute electrical energy, must submit itself to the jurisdiction and procedure of the board of transport commissioners. Section 368 of the Railway Act is rather lengthy and I should not like to read it but it makes tolls, rates and charges subject to the jurisdiction of the board. I have dealt with only one part of the question asked by the hon. member and, before dealing with the others, perhaps I should wait until we reach the particular section.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary AVest):: I am wholeheartedly in favour of this bill, for the simple reason that these people-I do not care whether they come from the United States; that would make no difference to me-are going to spend millions of dollars in this country to provide employment. All they are asking from this House of Commons is the right to build a railway; any lands and so forth that are involved belong to the province of Quebec. As far as this house is concerned, we can do one of two things; we can talk this bill out or vote against it, but in doing so let us all remember that we have been talking about full employment and if we talk this bill out we shall be killing the very thing of which we have said we are in favour.


William Irvine: I should like to make a few remarks on this bill and I do not want to kill it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not kill it with kindness.


William Irvine: I agree in part with the state

ment just made by the hon. member for Calgary AArest that we need railways and development and, if we cannot do it in any other way than by creating a monster profit corporation, it is better to do it in that way than not at all. To that extent I agree with him whole-

Private Bills
heartedly, but I want to take this opportunity to say that from my point of view I think it is a regrettable way of doing it. There is a decided connection in my mind between the existence of iron ore in the territory and the building of this railroad. If there is anything Canada needs more for its industries than iron ore, I do not know what it is.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then let us develop it.


William Irvine: Exactly, and I think this is a case where the federal government should have set aside these resources for the good of Canada and seen to it that this ore was brought to Canadian industry for the service of the people of Canada.
Let me say next that, while this government and the opposition champion-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to point out that the resources to which he is referring are a matter of provincial rights on the one hand and the rights of Labrador on the other.


William Irvine: I understand that there are provincial rights and other rights in Labrador, but the federal government has the right to set apart whatever it considers is for the general benefit of Canada. It could have done that and I believe it should have done that.


Humphrey Mitchell: You cannot set apart something that does not belong to you.


William Irvine: My hon. friend can argue that out with the Minister of Justice, and I think he will find that the point of view I have expressed is correct. At any rate let me go on to say that I am not presuming to criticize the government of Quebec for the action it has taken. That action is perfectly in keeping with what other governments throughout Canada have done throughout the whole history of Canada in granting licences to these companies. I think within the years to come there will be ample reason for objecting to what is now being done in this house, and I wish to present my views just as other hon. members do.
Free private enterprise in which some hon. members believe so ardently seems to be completely wiped out in this gigantic project. Take, for example, the Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited with two subsidiaries, the North Shore and the Labrador Company. Let us look at the privileges they get. Hollinger Consolidated, North Shore branch, has the exclusive right-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: May I again interrupt to say that they are not getting those privileges by this bill or from this government. They have been given them by another government.


William Irvine: I appreciate that. I am merely showing that there is a connection between what has been done by another government and what this government is about to do. Without the one the other is useless. It is all very well to talk here of a jait accompli and say you have to go on with it. I do not have to; my hon. friend may have to. I have a right to my objection and to my vote against this bill. I have a viewpoint and I am going to express it. I am not claiming any privilege that every other hon. member does not have. I want to show the privileges which have been granted to this company in the name of free private enterprise.


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member to deal specifically with clause 7.


William Irvine: Clause 7 deals with the railway concerned.


William Henry Golding: Order. Clause 7 does not deal with what has been done in the past.


William Irvine: No, but without what has been done in the past clause 7 has no meaning. If the Chairman rules me out of order I cannot do more, but I think I am in order in saying that there is a connection between this railway and the vast resources, exclusive rights to which have been given to certain private corporations. I want to show what those rights are.


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member kindly to discuss this clause and not deal with the past at all.


William Irvine: Clause 7 reads:
The company may lay out, construct and operate a railway starting at a point on the St. Lawrence river, somewhere between the Riviere Marguerite and Riviere Moisie, in the province of Quebec; thence in a northerly direction following the valley of the Riviere Moisie or the valleys of the Riviere Moisie-
Hon members will excuse my French.


Gordon Graydon: You will soon get your second wind.


William Irvine: If my hon. friend suggests that I am talking out the bill I will sit down at once.


Gordon Graydon: I shall be glad to make that suggestion if you will sit down.


William Irvine: I know my hon. friend is very anxious to assist free enterprise, but this is private monopoly and that is why I do not like it.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
Immigration Act



IMMIGRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) for the second reading of Bill No. 10. to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had just finished putting on the record some figures relating to our Chinese population. It will take me only a few moments to conclude what I have to say on this bill.
The Chinese people feel hurt at the treatment they have received. They are glad that the Chinese exclusion bill is to be repealed, but as our allies in the war they are hurt at the lack of recognition of China on equal terms with ourselves as a nation. It is not the numbers of their nationality admitted about which they are concerned but about their lack of recognition as an equal. I am sure that any mutual arrangement between China and Canada in this regard will be quite satisfactory to them, and I hope that negotiations will be entered into between the two nations which will lead to a complete understanding. The principle, which is what they are concerned with, will then be recognized, of their treatment as an equal.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: The bill under discussion embodies in itself a problem which has interested me for a certain number of years, and I should not like to see it receive second reading before taking my stand once more on this very dangerous question of immigration.
Of course I do not want to discriminate against any race. In his statement the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 2644 of Hansard:
The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that orientals are not easily assimilable. Even if I do not discriminate against them I have to admit the fact. I hold in my hand a clipping from a Quebec newspaper which I shall read in French because my ability does not go so far as to translate it. It is from L'Action Catholique, January 27, 1947, and deals with Chinese immigration.
(Translation):
The Chinese living in Canada demand the amendment of the present immigration act. They want their fellow countrymen in China to be allowed to come to Canada with their wives.

Our newspaper has often protested against the immoral aspect of an immigration act prohibiting wives from accompanying their husbands. For many years, Chinamen could enter Canada but Chinese women were excluded. Such a regulation is immoral in itself and conduces to countless immoralities. We need not labour the point.
We therefore hope that the Canadian government will adopt a reasonable and fair immigration policy. There is no reason why British subjects alone should be allowed to come to our country.
I agree with this last statement.
There is no reason why women should be excluded where other races are concerned. It is contrary to moral law and the principles of the Atlantic charter and the united nations organization.
This article is signed by Louis-Philippe Roy.
(Text):
Surely I am permitted Mr. Speaker, to speak generally on. immigration as a whole and discuss the principle of immigration on second reading of the bill. We should first make a very careful survey of the amount of farm acreage we have to see how many acres are left untilled at the present time in order to see how many farmers we can establish on land ready for them and, second, of districts where there is a possibility for newcomers to make a decent living and not be on the shoulders of the various governments of the country.
In some parts of Canada the natural growth of the population is sufficient to take care of the unoccupied areas. Take my own province. I think the natural growth of population is sufficient there for that purpose. In the statement of the Prime Minister, I read these words as reported at page 2644 of Hansard:
The government will seek by legislation, regulation, and vigorous administration, to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can advantageously be absorbed in our national economy.
I hope this selection will be very carefully carried out. This is a point that has to be most carefully observed. Being a free country, we have the privilege of selecting our own citizens. I believe that every Canadian should be most concerned about the selection of immigrants. What I fear most is the bringing in of people who would be a danger to our institutions. We have suffered too much in the past and recently by the coming here of people who are a burden and a danger and who are proving to be ready, on account of their allegiance to other countries, to put our country in the hands of nations advocating an ideology which, to say the least, is harmful

Immigration Act
and destructive of our democracy. We cannot afford, the present world situation being what it is, to renew that experience too often.
The Prime Minister's statement continues:
Like other major problems of today, the problem of immigration must be viewed in the light of the world situation as a whole. A wise and productive policy for Canada cannot be devised by studying only the situation within our own country.
The Prime Minister was right when he made that statement, and I believe he had this in mind. We have to examine carefully the background of every immigrant, however well recommended they are, and however strongly supported they may be by anyone or any organization dealing with immigrants. I do not know if such an organization still exists, but we have had them in the past. We shall probably see the old ones coming out again or new ones being formed. I know they are not sponsored, supported or encouraged by the government; but the government must not be too lenient; it must keep a close and careful watch on people who would feel like commercializing immigration. This has happened in the past. Anyone who has read the Hornby report knows that Colonel Hornby advocates subsidies to railway companies or navigation companies and subsidies to organizations dealing with immigration. I do not want to have any part in that.
If the government wishes to increase the population in order that the economic burden may be placed on more shoulders, it has to think of the social, political, and ideological future of this country. Since the coming of Cartier, we have been constructing and we do not want any pathological agent of any kind to dismantle the structure so patiently erected.
There are refugees; there are homeless people. Everyone knows that Canada has already done her share. She is ready to help some more, but let us do so intelligently and constructively. This is what I am trying to do in my remarks. In the statement of the Prime Minister we read this, as reported at page 2644 of Hansard:
Up until the end of the war-under order in council P.C. 695 of March 21, 1931-four broad categories of persons were admissible to Canada. These were:
1.	British subjects from the United Kingdom, Ireland. Newfoundland, New Zealand, Australia, or the Union of South Africa-
And so forth:
2.	United States citizens, similarly possessed of means of maintenance.
3.	Wives, unmarried children under 18, or fiancees of men resident in Canada.
4.	Agriculturists with sufficient means to farm in Canada.
I think point No. 4 should be the first to be considered. If, after a careful survey of all our farm acreage, we find that we can absorb farmers to add to the natural growth of the population, which is fair enough in some districts, I do not need to name them; it is well, but not before being sure of it. Why take the risk of increasing the population of the cities? There may come a period when the breadlines will be created again and the country will have too many to take care of. One has to foresee that eventuality, and I am glad to see in the declaration this:
During the 1930's due to the adverse economic conditions of the period, these provisions were necessarily interpreted in a restrictive manner.
It is the duty of a good government to foresee the possible return of bad conditions, not necessarily coming out of the internal situation, but due to the intimate connection of the different countries of the world on the economic ground. I read again:
The government has also extended admissibility to persons who are suitable for employment in the primary industries. As hon. members are aware, Canada's primary industries are experiencing an acute shortage of man-power.
Much has been said lately about the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) and about the Department of Immigration granting him permission to bring from Europe Ukrainian girls to work in his industry. Special conditions prevailing there, I do not see any scandal in that fact. The hon. member for Beauce and all the former members for Beauce whom I knew, are too good Canadians to discriminate against their own constituents and their own population. I read in the statement these following lines:
Canada is not obliged, as a result of membership in the united nations or under the constitution of the international refugee organization, to accept any specific number of refugees or displaced persons. We have, nevertheless, a moral obligation to assist in meeting the problem and this obligation we are prepared to recognize.
I have here an article from L' Action Calholique of Quebec, setting out a declaration of the Archbishop	of Montreal,
Monseigneur Charbonneau,	speaking on
immigration, tolerance and education:
(Translation):
His Excellency Archbishop Joseph Charbonneau, guest of honour of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce yesterday, at the Windsor hotel, spoke in favour of a policy of selected immigration which would enable thousands of wretched and homeless Europeans living under woeful conditions to associate themselves with us and thus "cause our ancestral heritage to fructify, without threatening our traditions and institutions." The Archbishop of Montreal, continues the article, in expressing those views, was recalling an opinion stated by His Holiness Pope Pius XII in a
Immigration Act

recent address in which he pointed to America as a country of boundless space and inexhaustible resources, and thus in a position to shelter many of those unfortunate people of Europe.
(Text):
I continue quoting from the statement of the Prime Minister:
With regard to the selection of immigrants, much has been said about discrimination.
This last quotation is extremely important.
I wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right" of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege.
Let this privilege, Mr. Speaker, be granted to future good citizens only, and it is not discrimination against anyone but an undesirable citizen. This democracy wants to live. Let us not inoculate her with germs of death. As for mass immigration, I am absolutely opposed to it; I always was and I always will be.
In a conference speech delivered over CHRC in Quebec a month ago, I put my position very clearly. Since I have not the necessary ability to translate it as it reads, I will read excerpts from it in French. I know that for those interested in this national problem it will be easy to have the translation in H ansard.
(Translation):
In that lecture I made the following statement: There is one kind of immigration which is inevitable; there is one which, to a certain extent, is acceptable. There is still another which a government solicitous .about the good administration, the welfare and the peace of the country they govern cannot accept and indeed must oppose, and that is the mass immigration advocated by some people interested in the setting up of powerful associations whose purpose is to promote extensive migrations.
The immigration that is inevitable is the moving of persons from one country to another; it involves people whose financial resources are considerable enough to entail a loss for the countries they leave and ensure a gain for those where they take up residence. That inevitable immigration also includes experts in all fields of science, whose talents are recognized throughout the world and whose services are often sought by universities which are anxious to benefit from their learning as well as from their outstanding reputation. It also includes bona fide settlers whose love for agriculture impels them to look for other more fertile lands, and who, to support their families, need a larger area of tillable land. 
Such immigrants leave their countries in order to improve their lot and because of their resourcefulness and industry they are a distinct asset to their new country.
Further, economic conditions are frequently the cause of greater migrations during difficult periods, thus favouring certain countries at the expense of others. Several years ago, we ourselves experienced a great migration of our compatriots from the province of Quebec to the New England states, where they now form an influential group; that was a distinct loss to Canada. Is it not true that in all countries and among all races, people very often feel the urge to travel from one place to another, in order to improve their lot, to seek larger fields of endeavour, or, as noted among certain tribes, to satisfy their thirst for adventure.
I spoke at the beginning of desirable immigrants. I mean by that people of sound mind, of excellent physical condition and possessed of sufficient means to be regarded as desirable in any country. Further, economic and political circumstances must play an important part in the selection of immigrants. I remember that, in 1937, a reporter of L'Evenement interviewed Canon Philippe Casgrain, chaplain of the Immigration Branch.
Because of prevailing conditions, therefore, Canon Casgrain had come to the conclusion that no one living in England or some other part of the British empire had anything to gain by settling in this country. After referring to the failure of the Hornby plan, submitted to the British House of Commons, the eminent cleric felt that England was too badly in need of her young people to allow their removal to Canada.
And on the basis of news brought us by various periodicals, we can readily realize that an act to promote British emigration would hardly be effective at this time, because British labour must have reinforcements for the completion of the established programme, the "planning" popularly so-called, of the new socialist government now in power.
England was then busy on its large-scale armaments programme.
Today, she is carrying out a sorely needed economic programme.
Furthermore, because of the terrible droughts which they had suffered in previous years, the western provinces were unable to absorb new immigrants, in spite of the vast areas of land which they could offer to a much greater population than they then had-
Well controlled and screened immigration may prove beneficial to the newcomers themselves and to the country in which they settle, inasmuch as they are desirable and their services

Immigration Act
are required. But, on the contrary, if the country is not even in a position to offer work .to its own people-[DOT]
Such was the case during the unemployment period which lasted from 1930 to 1935.
-it is obvious that the increase in population resulting from immigration would in no way provide for better social and economic conditions. It would only make things worse.
Canon Casgrain, it must be remembered, spoke at a time when unemployment was rampant in Canada.
(Text):
I am through for tonight, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to watch very carefully how this new policy is put into force. This problem has always interested me deeply, and I am going to watch the Minister of Mines and Resources very carefully and closely. I repeat that I am against mass immigration. I think we can accept good, selected immigrants, but only in the proportion that our land can absorb them. It is no use having immigrants come to our cities. In my own province the proportion of population in the cities and rural districts has changed until now the larger proportion is in the cities. I think we should follow the policy set out in paragraph No. 4 of the Prime Minister's statement, and first bring in farmers and settlers, rather than workers whom we do not need in our cities. I know there are special cases, but I speak of matters in general. I have confidence in the minister and the government, and I hope they will not leave the door ajar, as an hon. member said last year in speaking on this subject. Let us not have any mass immigration; let us have selected immigrants, and for God's sake let us realize that in order to be democratic it is not necessary to call to Canada all these people from Europe and Asia. To be democratic we must save our own d'emocracy first, and think as Canadians before everything.
Mr. JULIAN H. FERGUSON (Simeoe North): As a member of the federal parliament I shall endeavour to speak of immigration as it affects the Dominion of Canada in its entirety, not only the province of Ontario from which I come. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) dealt briefly with the subject of immigration. The war has been over for approximately two years, and the people of Canada are wondering what is to be done in regard to this vital matter. In my opinion it is one of the most vital questions with which we should be concerned at the present time. We lack information and the people require it in order that we may reap the benefits to which this country is entitled 83166-174
because of its natural resources and fertile fields from coast to coast. During the years from 1900 to 1907, when the Liberal party really functioned as such, I give them a great deal of credit for the immigration policy they put in force, under which people were brought from Europe to the western provinces. Today the sons and grandsons of those people are a credit to this country. Some of their sons sit in this House of Commons, and that just shows what happens when you bring the right type of people to this country.
During the last few days we have heard a great deal about the Chinese and the Japanese, about our obligations to these people and to the Poles. Today I understood the minister to state that this country had made no financial contribution toward the cost of bringing these Polish soldiers to this country. That may be so, but that was not the answer given a question asked in this house on March 27. The question was:
What has been the total cost of bringing Polish immigrants into Canada since January, 1946, including transportation, food, clothing, medicines and hospitalization . . .
How much of this expenditure has been borne by Canada?
The answer by the labour department to the question of how much of this expenditure has been borne by Canada was:
Approximately $121 per man borne by British government and $90 per man by the dominion of Canada.
Possibly the minister does not know what the labour department is doing in regard to immigration, but if they are that far apaJt I think they should get their heads together. Now let me read into the record a question asked on February 17 by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black):
What was the total transportation cost and by whom was it paid? How many Poles were permitted to enter Canada in 1946?
The answer by the Minister of Labour was:
Transportation from Halifax to central distribution centres in each province-approximately $125,000, paid by the federal Department of Labour.
During the war we saw many newspaper accounts about the bravery of the people of the British isles, England, Ireland and Scotland. If any subsidy is to be paid in order to bring immigrants of the right type to this country, I believe Canada could well afford *to consider first those heroes from the British isles, their wives and their children. I have the utmost regard for what the Polish soldiers did foT us; I also remember what some of them did against us. I hear hon. members speak about bringing displaced persons from

Immigration Act

Poland and parts of Russia, but as I think back I recall that many of those who took part in acts of espionage against this country were of Russian origin. So I agree with the previous speaker that we cannot be too careful in dealing with this question. But if we are badly in need of immigrants, why not go to other parts of the world from which we know came the forefathers of many people in this country today, men who laid and carried out plans of which we are all proud? I could mention France, England, Germany. In the first war I fought against the Germans for four and a half years, and I am sure they fought as willingly for their country as I did for mine; but I must say that 'the German immigrants who came to this country prior to the first war were a credit to Canada, as were their children. And their children and grandchildren died for this country in the last war. I do not think it is sufficient for the Prime Minister to say:
. . . the government has kept in active touch with shipping authorities and transportation companies in the United Kingdom to see what may be possible in the way of special shipping services. As to what may prove feasible, I am unable to make a report at this time.
I do not think it is enough to say that, after two years, the Prime Minister and the immigration branch cannot give this house a report on their findings in regard to shipping facilities. We need men badly in Canada. Some people seem to have the idea that the Englishman, the Scotsman and the Irishman cannot use an axe or cannot farm. Some years ago I had the good fortune to work back in the bush, up in the Hudson bay area. My brother and I at that time were the only two Canadians there, the rest of them being English, Irish and Scotch, who had never even seen a bush of that magnitude, and certainly had never had an axe in their hands prior to joining our party. But in the course of three weeks those men were able to cut bush with anyone. Do not think that because a man comes from London, England, he cannot learn how to use an axe, or cannot become acclimatized.


Pierre Gauthier: Nobody said that.


Mr. FERGUSON:: I did1 not hear that.


Pierre Gauthier: Nobody said you cannot use an axe if you came from England.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I have heard other people say it, and if my hon. friend wishes to take the nom de 'plume of a nobody, when he

speaks about some people in Canada, that is his privilege. I heard many people in Canada say it, and I repeat it.


Pierre Gauthier: You said it before; I never said it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I believe we cannot allow this question of immigration to go along as it has been going. Our lumber companies, our paper companies, need men in the bush; and the right kind of immigrants, the right kind of persons coming to Canada, will not take necessary work from Canadians. It will not affect our returned soldier settlers.
We plastered this country from coast to coast with big signs reading "Welcome Home", when the soldiers were coming back. Now, did those signs mean that our Canadian soldiers who were returning were to remain in their home towns for a few days, and then go a thousand miles to Manitoba or two thousand to British Columbia to work in the bush? I say, no. Those men should be able to obtain employment in communities to which they were welcomed when they came home. This country can obtain immigrants who are willing and capable to go into our forests, into our mines and on our farms to produce the raw materials with which our soldiers can work in our factories and cities. And they are entitled to that privilege.
I am not an advocate of chasing the returned men out to the wilderness, when they have previously lived in towns, and calling them a bad lot because they do not take the first job offered to them a thousand miles from their own homes.
I personally severely censure the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) because, thus far, his statement has had no weight in it. There has been no substance in it, and it has given no encouragement and no enlightenment to the people of Canada on a most vital and important question. I understand from the press that Australia has endeavoured to and has succeeded in obtaining boats to transport British immigrants to Australia. Here we have a country of 12,000,000 people, closer geographically to England and the British isles than Australia is. Yet, according to the press, in order to obtain the type and calibre of immigrants we need, our immigration branch has failed to do this.
I believe we should encourage immigration from the United States. I have travelled through that country to some considerable extent, and I know that the eyes of many United States youths are focused on Canada and on the great possibilities in this country. If immigration were encouraged, and those

Immigration Act
great possibilities were pointed out to the youth of the United States, they would come here, instead of our having the younger generation of this country leaving Canada at the rate of 20.000 a year. There is no rhyme or reason for it. There is no encouragement regarding immigration, and the great achievements which can be accomplished by the right kind of effort have not been pointed out by the government, and particularly by the immigration branch.


James Allison Glen: Would the hon. member give some evidence on this point? He spoke about the transportation Australia had furnished for immigrants. Has he any evidence of it? Can he supply the house with evidence of it?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I shall be delighted to look up the newspaper; possibly you missed it. It was published in several papers.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether I should add anything now, but I want to say this to my hon. friend, that I do not think anybody, including himself and myself and the government-


An hon. MEMBER:: All right.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have some feeling in this matter. I know as regards my hon. friend and hon. members of the official opposition, or any other party in the house, none of them would place anything in the way of immigration from the British isles to Canada. Let us clearly understand that. But at this particular moment immigration from those British isles to Canada is as free as to any country in the world, including Australia and [DOT]New Zealand. Let us be fair about it. My hon. friend talks about 50,000 people going to Australia, or 70,000.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Who is making the speech?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am.


George James Tustin: Why should you; the other hon. member has the floor.


Humphrey Mitchell: But he sat down.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I did not mention 50,000 or 70,000 people going to Australia. Do not put words into my mouth.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us read the record. It is a target, you understand.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: What do you mean by a "target"?


Humphrey Mitchell: I mean that 50000 or 70000 is a target; I do not mean my hon. friend is a target.
83166-174J


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I did not mention 50,000 at all.


James Horace King: Order. I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that we are on second reading of the bill, and that no member has the right to speak twice.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have the floor. I want to repeat that immigration, or emigration to Canada-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, is the minister asking the previous speaker a question, or is he-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is making a speech on second reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Members of the government have a right, to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, if the minister is making a speech, may I point out that he has already spoken in the debate on second reading. His speech is reported at page 325 of Hansard.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, I was answering a question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, he was answering a question.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but I must call his attention to the fact that the privileges of the house apply to both sides, and that he can speak only once on second reading. Of course he has the privilege to put a question to the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is answering a question.


Mr. ADAMSON:: On a point of order, I understood that the Minister of Mines and Resources put a question to the hon. member for Simcoe North, and that the hon. member yielded the floor so that the question could be asked. But he yielded only for the question. He had not concluded his remarks, and therefore he still has the floor.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say this to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that I think he is the. most expensive luxury in this house. I understand that the cost of debates is $60 a minute. He has taken up his share of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is the minister's answer to the point of order I raised, it is an admission that he was wrong.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is another $50.


Humphrey Mitchell: He could be a little charitable when I am answering a question.
Immigration Act


James Horace King: I suggest that the minister should wait until we get into committee of the whole.
Mr. E. B. McIvAY (Weyburn): Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on this subject. First, I wish to commend the government upon the steps already taken to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act. Inadequate as this now appears to be, it is at least a step in the right direction. Because of that, I commend the government upon the action taken. The repeal of this act is a forward movement to eliminate, in part, racial discrimination exercised in the past against this group of Asiatic people. However it appears that much has yet to be done to remove all discriminatory tendencies in the administration of our immigration laws. May I refer at this time to a statement made by a prominent churchman, Very Reverend Doctor Peter Bryce, who stated in a recent speech:
Race prejudice must go. Colour discrimination must be put aside. The Christian ethic is everlastingly true and not only true but indispensable.
Another statement has been issued by the Ottawa diocesan synod of the Church of England, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of May 1, and I quote, in part:
This synod opposes any advantage being given to immigrants of any -racial or religious group.
There should not be any preferred races if Canada is to escape the charge of having discriminatory legislation. One race cannot be accepted as superior to another. Indeed there is no superior race. Canadian boys laid down their lives to defeat militarism promoted by a race which rated itself as supermen. Those people believed themselves fitted by their racial characteristics to rule the world. Let us have done with superior races and preferred nations. A continuance of such a policy gives rise only to hatreds and contributes to war psychology.
The world is faced with the problem of finding homes for refugees created as a result of militarism and anti-race prejudice ran wild. The world has been saved from aggression and totalitarianism, but in the wake of that great world struggle to free the world from these influences there has been created much distress. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister {Mr. Mackenzie King) say in his statement yesterday to the House of Commons that, while Canada is not obligated as a result of membership in the united nations or under the constitution of the international refugee organization to accept any specified number of refugees or displaced persons, we admitted

a moral obligation. We in this group are pleased that that admission of moral obligation was made. Undoubtedly Canada has that moral obligation.
But we must go farther than just to admit a moral obligation. The Prime Minister added to his first statement by saying that machinery is to be set up to move some thousands of refugees to Canada. I shall look forward with interest to the number that are admitted. I hope that not too many barriers will be placed against the qualification of these refugees for entry into Canada, and it is to be hoped that other limitations will not be used as an excuse for not bringing these folk to our shores. In this connection, may I refer again to the remarks made yesterday by the Prime Minister, as reported on page 2645 of Hansard. He said:
The resettlement of refugees and displaced persons constitutes a special problem. In the intergovernmental committee on refugees, and in the discussions in the united nations leading to the establishment of the international refugee organization, Canada has taken an active part. In this connection, the government has taken measures respecting the admission of refugees and displaced persons, and also of Polish exsoldiers. These measures, though not of wide scope, are practical steps within the present physical limitations imposed by transportation.
With regard to transportation I have heard several people say that the lack of shipping has been the chief reason why displaced persons have not been moved to Canada. May I ask the minister at this stage if representations have been made at any time by the British government with regard to relieving the situation of displaced persons in camps in British occupied Germany? Many fine people from the Baltic states are to be found in the British zone. While those people are of German ethnic origin, they have never been our enemies. Britain has already taken some 250,000 refugees but she is not in position to accept a great many more. I am sure that if Canada would agree to admit some of these Baltic people Great Britain would provide the shipping accommodation. Would the minister make a note of my question so that it can be answered at the conclusion of my remarks?
The situation facing these refugees is tragic and their condition is grave, so much so as to demand speedy action on the part of the Canadian government. Tens of thousands of these hopeless people are roaming the streets and highways of Germany, Austria and Italy. Day by day these people are becoming mentally sicker and sicker, believing that no country or people want them. Many thousands are dying of malnutrition and

Immigration Act
disease. The condition of these people is such that anything which is to be done for them must be done with dispatch.
I believe that if Canadians were acquainted with the terrible conditions which these people face there would be a growing demand from all sections of the country that something be done on their behalf immediately. During the last war Canada poured out blood and treasure to establish freedom throughout the world, freedom not only for ourselves but for every people, regardless of race, colour or creed. If we are to have that freedom for all people which the united nations charter has set up as a right, some effort must be made to provide economic freedom for people as well as political freedom. There is very little hope of obtaining economic freedom for the displaced people in Europe.
Wars bring many after problems, not the least of which is a pressing refugee problem which appears most serious in many parts of Europe. The united nations are faced with the task of locating homes for these people who are the heirs of a militant fascism run wild. There are many folk in the areas laid waste by the invaders who face a hopeless future, a future in which there is little or no opportunity for them to earn a decent living. While some of these people may have political freedom, many are denied even a measure of economic liberty which all of us desire. This in large part nullifies the effect of any political liberty that they may have gained.
Canada as a responsible member of the united nations has a moral obligation to these helpless refugees. With our ample stores of natural resources and a territory largely unpeopled, Canada should be in a better position than most nations to accommodate large numbers of the world's homeless. Many of these people have knowledge and skills which Canada needs. Refugees admitted to Wales in the United Kingdom have been responsible for setting up sixty types of new industries. I have a clipping taken from the Christian Science Monitor, bearing the date line Cardiff. Wales, October 9, which reads:
History is repeating itself here.
More than a thousand years ago. the surrounding valleys began to rise to prosperity as a direct result of the welcome they gave foreign craftsmen-the Danes and the Saxons.
Now a major part in rebuilding the shattered economy of industrial South Wales is once again being played by foreign firms, the greater part of them refugees from Europe.
Like the Huguenots who found refuge in Britain from religious persecution in the 16th century and repaid a hundredfold by the establishment of the British silk industry, most of these firms which sought shelter from Hitlerdominated Europe now are repaying Wales for the welcome they received by establishing light industries completely new to this area.
Industries of a special character involving the manufacture of finer chinaware, jewellery, fine textiles and plastics now employ thousands of Britishers because of the establishment of these manufactures by refugees. A few have even made a contribution to Canada's economic progress by setting up industries here. Refugees of this type can aid in Canada's development. They will not contribute to our unemployment problem but rather will help to solve it. All too few of them have been admitted. Their numbers could be substantially augmented.
I may add that western Canada should be glad to welcome people with such knowledge and techniques in order to establish a balance between industry and agriculture, which is so much desired on the plains. There is on the western prairies an abundance of raw materials, a large consumer market, and quantities of cheap power in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. which should be an inducement to the establishing of industries on the western plains.
The refugee problem is a challenge to our humanity and hospitality. It is real and it is urgent. Many of these people are desirous of entering our gates as the applications for entry on files in the immigration branch can attest. It is an immediate problem which should be dealt with separately and not in any way confused with the immigration question as a whole.
These people need succour. Our humanity should dictate the course to follow and selfish interests should not prevail.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, representing a riding that sent many battalions and regiments and many, many thousands of soldiers overseas to fight in the last world war as well as in the first, it is not much wonder that I have been receiving communications approving particularly of section 3(4) (b) whereby the wives or widows and children of soldiers will now be able to come into Canada. Many of these soldiers left wives or widows and children overseas, and I am very glad, therefore, that the minister has seen fit to write into the bill this clause permitting of their entry into Canada. These soldiers were not all of Anglo-Saxon stock, although I am safe in saying that perhaps ninety per cent of them were of Anglo-Saxon stock. Davenport is a riding that gives a good cross-section, Your Honour, of every race, and I am proud of all the different races I have the honour to represent. Many of my constituents are Jews and I am glad to pay a
Immigration Act

tribute to the Jews in my riding. They are a great business people, aside from other worthy characteristics. Many streets in Davenport riding have been built up by the Jewish merchants of Toronto, and to them and to their people I can say that I am happy indeed that they are there.
Many of these people have approached me to see if anything can be done to have admitted into Canada the last remaining member of their family in Europe. I have in mind one family that lived in Germany and consisted of thirty-six people altogether, grandfather, grandmother, brothers, sisters, uncles and children, and today just one is left out of the whole thirty-six, which means that the other thirty-five were killed in the war. They have been begging me to do what I can to have the last remaining member of the family admitted to Canada. Whether the bill permits that, I do not know, but I know the bigness of-the heart of the minister and if the bill does not permit it, I trust that he will have some regulation made whereby the last remaining member of the Jewish family I have in mind-and the Jews suffered more than any other people on the continent during the war -will be permitted to come to Canada.
I have many Ukrainians in my riding, and having been in big business for many years, in the iron and steel business, I know that many Ukrainians were employed in that industry and did splendid work there. I am glad to have Ukrainians in my riding, not only because of their ability to work in industry, but because I know from my travels that there are perhaps no better farmers than the Ukrainians. I have seen them in every part of the west in which I have been and I can speak highly of that race too.
I have a number of French Canadian families in my riding, and I must tell my French Canadian compatriots that, though living in Toronto, they are just as loyal to Quebec and Jts traditions as if they were living in Quebec. I am happy to inform my French Canadian compatriots in the house that these French Canadian families in my riding do not carry on politics there because they all vote for me. I have been in some of their homes and I have /fund them thrifty people, keeping their homes m fine shape. The men are excellent workmen. They read the English papers and I send them the French papers too, so that they can keep abreast of happenings in Quebec.
I have quite a large number of Poles in my riding. In my time there were perhaps 250 or 300 Poles working in the large industry in which I was engaged. They are wonderful iron moulders. They take naturally to the iron industry, and as the bill introduced by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret)

was under discussion tonight looking to the development of the iron mines in Labrador and northern Quebec, I thought to myself that, if that iron industry ever gets going, what a fine place that would be for our Polish citizens to serve and do a fine job. They are great industrial workers, but that is only one characteristic; they have great aptitudes in the arts and sciences, and I find them in high positions everywhere.
I have in mind a Ukrainian family. They are the grandchildren of the pioneer himself, a Ukrainian who could not speak a word of English when he came here. He brought his wife with him, of course, and raised a family here. One of the sons of that father has six children, of whom three are male and three are female. Three male members of the family of this pioneer, once removed from the grandfather pioneer, are highly educated men. Two of them are big engineers; the other is a doctor. The three girls have all graduated in arts from the university. Two of them are teaching school. One of them is a teacher in one of the big collegiates. Who in the world can complain of admitting people like that? These are excellent citizens. They help to build up a country. I love all races. I have not a feeling in my heart against any race. We are all God's creatures. We are just what we were born. We had nothing to do with our ancestors. I am happy to find all races doing well in Davenport riding.
I mentioned the Poles. In that regard I wish to say that some days ago I read in the papers an article that I just did not understand. It alleged that the hon. member for Broadview said something in the house about the Poles. I did not hear it myself. It seemed to be not too pleasant toward the Polish people. I can say this about the hon. member for Broadview, that no other race in the country has any more consistent defender than the hon. member has been of the Poles. The hon. member for Broadview would not intentionally say an unkind word about any race. I have known him for years, and particularly during the long years when he was mayor and controller in Toronto. I always thought he was the choice par excellence of all races. I * am under the impression that what was in the paper must have been a misunderstanding of what the hon. member for Broadview said. He would not say anything about any race that was not in their favour.
In my riding I also have Italians. I can speak of them in the highest terms. The Italians in the Davenport riding are contractors and are doing good jobs. They are thrifty and are getting along as we would want to see them get along. They take part

Immigration Act
in different activities, and in my contact with them I find 'they are as reputable citizens as one will find anywhere.
Then I have quite a number of Czechs in my riding. An hon. member spoke about the Czechs a few moments ago. Like the Germans they have the ability to invent and produce. In the Davenport riding there are quite a number of German and Czech families. Their inventions, their productions and their interest in industry are commendable. We are glad to have them here.
Hon. members will be surprised to learn that I have a few Japs in my riding. I am not one of those who despise the Jap, not by any means. The Japs with whom I have come in contact may not be the same kind of Japs that I have heard some hon. members speak about. All I can say is that 'the Japs in Davenport riding have given a good account of themselves. Those around them seem to consider them excellent citizens.
I have a number of Chinese in my riding. Earlier in the evening someone mentioned the Chinese. I doubt whether there is any race in the world 'that is more patient than the Chinese. Their patience is amazing. They are called the patient Chinese. They, too, have taken a good part in industry in Toronto, apart from laundries and things of that kind. They have big business establishments, and so long as they devote their 'time to .building up the country they deserve consideration.
Then we have quite a number of coloured families who have come from the southern states. I suppose most of them are employed on the railways. I do not know what we would do without our coloured families; I do not know how we would get along if they did not do the jobs they do. Therefore Davenport riding is a cross-section of all races.
As I said at the beginning, I am going to close with this. The predominant part of my riding, not less than ninety to ninety-five per cent, is Anglo-Saxon. As I said a few moments ago, they sent many brigades and many regiments and many, many thousands of soldiers overseas by voluntary enlistment to defend the empire. Naturally I am just as proud as I can be; I could not be more proud, of the Anglo-Saxon population of Davenport riding. During the late war and in all the activities of the city, in business, in learning, in the arts and sciences they stand high. I shall conclude with this: None of us can afford to discount any race. In the world's history they have all been to the top. In the days of Caesar, the Italians were on top. Later on, the Poles were on top of the world. Even the Turks were on top of the world at
one time. In the days of Napoleon the French swept Europe. Therefore they have all demonstrated that they have the characteristics to make real people, to make a real nation. And, sir, if they do their part here in Canada I for one will be glad to have them come here.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a statement yesterday on the government's immigration policy which falls, as he pointed out, into two parts: first, a long-range immigration policy, and second, immediate measures to permit entry to Canada of displaced persons and refugees. With the government's long-range policy I am in entire agreement, and I wish to commend the Prime Minister and the government on that policy, even though the announcement may have little practical value and may mean little for some time to come. Nevertheless the Prime Minister's statement in this connection makes Canada's position clear, and I am sure that the policy he announced will meet with the general approval of the Canadian people.
In dealing with the long-range immigration policy, the Prime Minister made what I consider to be eight important points, and I may add that I agree with every one of them. These were the eight points:
1.	That the government was in favour of allowing a substantial number of immigrants to enter Canada.
2.	That an increase in population would not lead to the lowering of our standard of living, but that the opposite would be true.
3.	That a larger population would provide a larger market for our primary products and would reduce in some measure our dependence on export of our primary products,
4.	That a large population would contribute substantially to the development of our natural resources.
5.	That Canada should receive immigrants on the basis of our economic absorptive capacity.
6.	That the people of Canada would not favour a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.
7.	That Canada should reserve to herself the right to control the entry or non-entry of persons seeking to become Canadian citizens, regardless of the charge of discrimination.
8.	And this point or consideration is the most important in my view, that Canada "cannot ignore the danger that lies in a small population attempting to hold so great a heritage as ours," to use the Prime Minister's own words. No responsible Canadian can disagree with the Prime Minister on that statesmanlike statement.
Immigration Act

Coming now to the other part of the Prime Minister's statement, namely, the one covering the immediate immigration policy to provide entry to Canada of displaced persons and refugees, I must say that, although I shall support the bill, I have several reservations to make. In the first place, hon. members will have noticed that the statement which the Prime Minister made yesterday was extremely carefully prepared, which indicates that the Prime Minister attaches a great deal of importance to it.
Second, it was the Prime Minister who made the statement in the house and not the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen). That, too, carries a certain significance. It is true that the Prime Minister made a general statement only and that the results may be better than those we have had in the first two years since the end of the war. But if the results are not any better than the government has shown in the past, then the government's announcement will be of little practical value. I do not wish to be unduly critical of the government's immediate immigration policy, but I am sure that past experience justifies me in taking a more or less scrutinizing attitude. It was on May 28 of last year that the government passed two orders in council granting permission to certain classes of people to enter Canada. It will be a year on the 28th of this month since those orders in council were passed and only a handful of people were permitted to come into Canada. If Canada is to show her humanitarian attitude in the solution of this problem, I personally believe that we must speed up the work in the immigration branch and also speed up the setting up of the various offices throughout Europe. So far, Canadian immigration offices were opened at Athens, Greece; at Lisbon, Portugal; at Paris, France; at Brussels, Belgium; at The Hague, Holland; at Oslo, Norway; in Czechoslovakia; and we are told that offices will soon be opened in Poland. If we are anxious to help displaced persons and refugees, if we are really sincere in our desire to help them, why not set up immigration offices in Germany, in Austria and in Italy? That is where the displaced persons are and that is where most of the countries have their immigration missions.
When I was in Rome two or three months ago I had the privilege of interviewing the Argentine immigration mission. They had their immigration minister in Rome selecting the type of people whom they wanted. It is very fine for us to say that we have set up offices in the various countries to help the refugees so that they may travel to all these points, apply for their visas and be examined med-
[Mr. Hlynka.3
ically. But the fact remains that refugees have no means of travelling to those points; refugees have no permission to leave their camps and travel to the various countries in order to be examined, and from which they could emigrate to Canada or other countries. The job must be done on the spot and that is one thing that we in Canada have overlooked.
I notice, from the report on immigration and labour, that the director of immigration, Mr. Jolliffe, made the statement that offices cannot be established in Germany, for Germany is under military occupation. That, Mr. Speaker, I submit is not correct; because, as I pointed out, the Argentine mission is in Rome; and Italy was until February 10 and, as a matter of fact, still is occupied territory. These various South American countries have their immigration missions travelling all over Europe selecting the best immigrants they can get. It seems to me that we are working more or less under a misapprehension that the displaced persons are the type of persons whom we must scrutinize almost with suspicion; we must of course, scrutinize them to a degree. But after having seen the displaced persons, I disagree with those hon. members who state, and repeat, that we must be perhaps overcareful andj not allow any of them to come in. That would be the effect, because we are emphasizing so greatly the fact that we must be so careful. The very fact that displaced persons are where they are today is because they have held democratic ideals so high that they have given up their old homes and moved westward so that they may join the western European nations and the United States. Surely we will give those people an opportunity; surely we will choose or take our lot from the very first group that wants to come out.
I am going to be frank and say this: unless Canada moves at a more rapid pace than she has done thus far, we are not going to get the best type of immigrant. The best type of people will go elsewhere. They cannot continue to live in the camps which consist of old garages, old military barracks and old stables. In them are people of all ranks among whom are persons who, I must say, in many respects are much better than we are. There are in those camps persons who have written numbers of books and persons who can make the most remarkable things out of practically nothing. If any of us found! ourselves in a camp, what could we do? What would1 our talents be? But we forget these things. We feel that we are on this continent and are safe, that we do not have to worry about anybody in Europe. I maintain that if the

Immigration Act
Canadian government were serious in this matter they would have sent an immigration mission to Europe last year to investigate conditions and bring in certain recommendations to the government and to this parliament. But no. We do not care what happens to the displaced persons and refugees. We pass orders in council. Last year, on May 28, the Minister of Mines and Resources tabled certain orders in council in this chamber. Since then, in one year's time, only fourteen people of my origin were admitted to Canada. Those people cannot stay in the camps indefinitely and we must realize that.
I might point out that the organization known as IGCR-intergovernmental committee for refugees- is doing good work in Europe. I have had several interviews with Canadian representatives-as a matter of fact, they were Canadians themselves-and they were doing everything in their power to speed up the bringing of a certain number of displaced persons to Canada. But they were helpless. They pointed out that the regulations were such as to permit hardly anyone to leave. They could not go into the camps and demand that certain individuals be handed over, so that they might be examined and have their documents prepared in order that they might leave. First of all, they had to ascertain whether the person in a displaced persons camp was a relative; they had to investigate his history, and then on this side we make an investigation into the economic condition of the person applying for the admission of that relative, and so on. I spent three months travelling in Europe where these displaced' persons are. I have seen these people; I have seen the conditions under which they live, and I must disagree with the suggestion by the Prime Minister that transportation facilities are not available and therefore we must wait until they are. As a matter of fact he stated that it may be more than a year before transportation can be provided. Well, if we are to wait another year some of these people in Europe will not 'be able to last that long.
Then the Prime Minister pointed out that it is not the regulations that matter, that they will not speed up the entry of these people into Canada. If it is a fact that ships cannot be provided, nothing can be done about that phase of the problem, but if these persons were granted permission to come to Canada; if they were given visas, then they could obtain transit visas which would enable them to go to France, Holland or Belgium, obtain employment there and help rebuild those countries. Then, when we could provide transportation we could call them up and they would be ready to leave. So I plead with the minister to give 83166-175
his most sympathetic and serious consideration to that partial solution of the problem. Grant visas to the people who are acceptable to us, who we feel might come to Canada, and let them emigrate elsewhere for the time being until they can be brought to this country. Then certainly we would be doing a humanitarian job.
I must say that when representatives of the various countries asked me about Canada's immigration policy I had to keep my lips closed and say nothing. They asked me why Canada with its vast area and rich natural resources would not accept any of these people, while a little country like Britain could accept hundreds of thousands of them. The British people stood by their humanitarian principles, and personally I bow my head to them. We know the British people are short of food and short of housing. We know it is more difficult for them to accommodate Europeans who do not speak their language, but they do accept them, while we are putting off playing our part in the matter. Two years have passed; now we have another announcement made in the house. What will be the next step?
As I have said, I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of the Prime Minister's statement, but if I understand that announcement properly the indications are that those people in displaced persons camps have little hope of coming to Canada, with the exception of those who may be able to stick it out, no matter what happens. Recently I read in the newspapers where some of the British and United States military authorities said that unless IRO takes over the problem of looking after displaced persons the British and American governments may be forced to send these people back under the Soviets, regardless of the people's wishes. Surely a statement like that is of great concern to Canadians who have relatives in these camps. I cannot emphasize this phase of the problem too strongly.
If time permitted I would wish to bring to the house a picture of the life of these people. Just here I might refer to an article appearing in World Report of August 15, 1946. in which it is stated that the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada contributed ninety-four per cent of all the money that w'as placed at the disposal of UNRRA. It was also stated that forty per cent of the supplies distributed by UNRRA were distributed in the areas dominated or controlled by the Soviet Union. It does not seem logical that the English-speaking countries of the world should contribute ninety-four per cent of all the money spent by UNRRA and yet allow themselves to be pushed around by the

Immigration Act

Soviets on this question. That is, however, the fact. United States military authorities in the occupied zones of Austria and Germany, and the British military authorities in those countries, as well as in Italy where there is a joint occupation force, have simply allowed themselves to be pushed around at every suggestion coming from Moscow. They fear what Moscow is going to say if they refuse to hand over these people. They fear what Moscow may say if they help these people to emigrate to other countries. It seems to me that we should stand on our own feet to avoid being pushed over the precipice, and say we believe that we should provide an asylum for the homeless, the stateless, the unfortunate people of Europe. There is only a very small number of them. As a matter of fact, I think the problem has been exaggerated, so far as numbers are concerned. Many say that there are simply millions of people. There were; but displaced persons now constitute a very small problem, if a number of countries agreed to take a share of the responsibility. Canada could take a share of that responsibility, and need not move only at the time when the senate committee begins its work.
Incidentally, at this point I wish to pay tribute to the senate committee on immigration and labour for having done a great service for this nation in bringing about a discussion on immigration during the last session. I extend my hearty thanks to them again this year for having begun to do the same thing.
Those who are worried about the type of people found among displaced persons have no reason to worry. I for one am confident that they will love Canada and be grateful to Canada and we will love them if we allow them to come in. But I do want to say that of the many displaced persons in the camps, people of Ukrainian origin, people of Polish origin, people of Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Yugoslav origin, not one is a communist. Surely that should be a point in their favour. I am certain that if they' are allowed to come into Canada not one of them will ever support communism; they will be the strongest defenders of democracy. And they have proven it thus far, by having lost everything, by having to give up their homes and all their earthly possessions in order to defend and to stand up in defence of the principles of freedom.
I pointed out to General Fenshawe, who is head of UNRRA in the British zone, that he should do everything in his power not to allow forced repatriation of those unfortunate

people. They have no armies behind them; they have no propaganda machines behind them; they have no economic means behind
them.	They are simply helpless, homeless and unfortunate people. I said to him, "Stand by these people, and you will never regret it." If we do not stand by them now, what will they think? If some of them live long enough to be shipped back under a dictatorship, surely we Canadians should rather welcome them now as immigrants than to meet some of them, perhaps, with bayonets, coming from the north. Surely we should realize that.
I am glad that when the Prime Minister made his statement he did not miss saying that we cannot ignore the danger which lies in a small population attempting to hold so great a heritage as ours. That is the most important point of all. If we disappoint these people now, after we have appealed to them for more than thirty years to believe in Christianity, to believe in democracy, and
then,	when they want to cling to democracy and Christianity, we tell them, "No, we cannot accept you; we are sorry, but our regulations do not permit of our taking you" or, "We have no boats", such answers are not good enough. They have given up everything for the ideals I have mentioned.
I should like now to read from an article which appeared in the Evening Standard of London, England, under date of February 7, 1947. Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Morgan, in a speech delivered at a luncheon given by the News Remew World held at the Savoy, said this:
What a distressingly typical symptom of our rising tide of bureaucracy it is that has wished on these unfortunates the label "displaced persons." This unhappy term, carelessly or perhaps even cleverly used, has come to be associated in most people's minds with shiftless mendicancy, even with criminality. How wrong this is.
Though most of you know why these displaced persons became displaced, it is not strikingly evident why they remain displaced and why it is so vitally urgent that something be done now to help them. They cannot help themselves. In the popular conception UNRRA has failed, and failed most notoriously in its DP operations. What better means of economising, you may argue, than to withdraw our help from the DPs and let them fend, somehow or other, for themselves. They have no governments at their backs likely to complain. Have I overdrawn the picture? Maybe, maybe not.
Well, what is to be done now? Must anything be done? It must indeed. For whether we like it or not we are committed to succouring these homeless people.
Have we helped them so far merely to turn round upon them now and tell them we intend to do no more? God forbid. Do we tell them to get back behind the iron curtain and take their medicine?

Immigration Act
Why is it that we cannot grasp this problem of the absorption among our own teeming millions of this small remnant of misery that owes its sufferings so much to the fact that it has friendship towards us? What is stopping us? A rapid and positive solution is so much to be desired from every point of view. We in this country-
He is speaking of Great Britain.
-are crying out for labour.
I say roundly that it is incumbent on us, the British, to set an example in the matter by dealing quickly and fearlessly with our share of the problem with the quarter million or so of DPs in our British zone of Germany.
Let us bring them here, I say, not as expatriated minorities, but as the families of our friends, for such they are. You may adduce difficulties of feeding or of housing. But we feed them now in Germany.
To them, I assure you, the veriest pigsty in England would be a palace in comparison with what they have had to inhabit these many years. And there seems to have been, to be. little difficulty in housing, and feeding many thousands of our enemies and ex-enemies-* prisoners of war.
Is this too much to ask? Are we, by any chance, afraid to face up to it for fear of what are called repercussions? If so, let us just remember that the obstacles which exist are man-made. Man made the restrictions, man can unmake them if he wills.
We should think this problem through carefully once more and we should set wheels in motion if we mean what we say. Passing orders in council and changing regulations are not going to help these people who are in displaced persons camps. It is an immediate problem; it is an urgent problem, and its solution has been dragged out now for two years. AVe have hardly admitted anyone; we simply clamped down and sat tight and said, "We are trying; we are considering the matter." That is not good enough. I should like to give the minister and his officials and the government all the credit to which they are entitled, based on the recent announcement, but I fear that if I begin to laud the government they will simply sit back, and the results at the end of the year will not be any better than they were at the end of last year. Whatever is to be done should be done quickly.
Even though it may be late, I suggest that the government should send an immigration mission to the United States and British zones of Germany and Austria and to Italy to see these people, to study them and to study the conditions under which they live. I can tell this house that some of these men and women whom I met there are just the type of people Canada could be proud of, and I am sure we would gain a lot by letting them in. I should like to commend the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), the 83166-175i
Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) upon having agreed to grant permission to several industrialists to bring in a few of these displaced persons.
Some hon. members have criticized the government for taking that step, but it seems to me that they are somewhat hasty because no one as yet has exploited these people. I believe these industrialists are sincere in trying to help these people. If they bring in a number of them at their own expense and later deduct transportation expenses from the money earned by the workers I think it is an excellent idea. It is one way of solving the problem and doing our share. So I thank the ministers for having agreed to permit the bringing in of a few of these people.
One could speak on this subject for hours and hours, but by saying over and over again what has been said once I might not be making the case any stronger. I have been critical of the immediate policy of the government in connection with the bringing in of displaced persons, because I feel so keenly about the matter. I know the conditions under which these people live. If we allow them to stay in these camps much longer some of them will simply not be able to stand it. AAre would not have been able to stand it if we were in their position. They have gone through six years of war and have been two years in these camps, and we are expecting them to wait still longer.
1 will close by appealing to the minister and to the government to put into practice the regulations which have been tabled. If the whole job is speeded up and done well, I shall be only too glad to rise in my place to express thanks to the government for having done their part in solving this great humanitarian problem.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to add very much to the remarks I made when I spoke on Monday last. However, I should like to comment on a point or two, now that we have the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) before us. On Monday last I raised the question of action in the matter of displaced persons and particularly of refugees, and I was pleased to note that in a few days we had before the house something which gave us a basis for further discussion. I think the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) was prepared to say a word or two on Monday last, but he did not have an opportunity. I was glad to note that the Prime Minister used words which indicate that at
Immigration Act

least something definite is being undertaken at this time. He is reported on page 2645 of Hansard as saying:
The government is sending immigration officers to examine the situation among the refugee groups, and to take steps looking towards the early admission of some thousands of their number.
I take it, by taking those words at face value, the Prime Minister meant that the government is taking definite steps at this time toward speeding up the admission of these classes of people.
Before going on to the next point and as an aside I wish to say that I think the house ought to be congratulated upon the high plane of the discussion which has been carried on today. It was a great pleasure and satisfaction to me, listening to this problem in which I have such a close interest, to hear hon. members one after another deal with this problem from the point of view of a sense of responsibility which this country has. It is no use approaching it from one particular angle because it is a two-fold problem. First, we must consider what we can do with our immigration policy to help Canada and, second, what we can do to help people outside Canada. I was pleased to note that hon. members did not approach this problem from the one point of view alone, but took in the whole picture.
I was pleased also to note that those who referred to the various races which make up this country did so in the kindest terms. I think it augurs well for the future of this country when hon. members, regardless of race or creed, can rise in their places in this house and say things about each other in that fashion.
I wish to put on record a recommendation that was sent on to me and submitted, I believe, to the government some time ago by the Ukrainian Catholic Council of Canada, which speaks for five dominion-wide Catholic organizations. I do so, because in two simple paragraphs they set out clearly and succinctly what I believe the government might well consider as a short-term and a long-term policy. First, as a short-term programme, they set out this:
It is desirous that the dominion government, at the least, arrange for the immigration of the refugees who already have affidavits from their Canadian next-of-kin, and for whose transportation and welfare guarantees have been made by these Canadian citizens.
Then, as a long-range policy, they suggest this:
Furthermore, it is thought that the dominion government should embark upon a bold but sensible immigration policy, and like Canadian
[Mr. Zaplitny.}
governments of the past seek to stimulate the material development of Canada by changing our stringent immigration laws and devising a wholesome government immigration plan that would integrate the flow of immigrants with the development of the country, geared to our potential resources and to a scientifically-determined, desirable population level.
That, in very few words, sets out an immediate and a long-range programme which we might very well consider. I think we all realize that there is a difficulty involved in trying to say today what our immigration policy should be a year hence or two years or five years from now, because the economic conditions of the country at that time will have a great deal to do with the absorptive capacity of the country.
I want to mention again a suggestion I placed before the Minister of Mines and Resources on Monday, and that is whether he would not take under consideration the issuing of visas to people who have been found to be in admissible classes but who, for the time being, cannot find transportation to come to Canada. I am sure that when he takes part in this debate he will have something to say on that subject. I think he realizes the importance and the necessity of doing that in certain cases, since there are many people who, because they have nothing to show that they will be admitted to Canada, are being hounded around and being told to go back to their country of origin or go elsewhere. In other words, they are not only displaced but find themselves as unwanted people in the displaced persons camps. A document of that sort in tangible form would be something for them to anchor themselves to and would give them hope.
I do not need to say much more. It is almost eleven o'clock; but before I conclude I wish to refer to the other part of this bill which has been almost forgotten in the recent discussion, and that is the provision for the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. I am not going to repeat all the fine things that have been said about those of the Chinese race in this country. I know we all want our laws to be as fair as possible to all concerned and, since this provision means the talcing of one more step toward wiping out any discrimination which may exist, to that extent I am in favour of it. Much has been said in this debate about developing tolerance among the various races in this country. Desirable as that may be as an immediate objective, what we need in the long run is not mere tolerance but the real thing, which is the human instinct of mutual respect for

United Nations
the sanctity of mankind. Nothing less than that will ever do away with discrimination in the end. I think we are slowly and perhaps a bit impatiently moving toward that goal.
On motion of Mr. Mutch the debate was adj ourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 5, 1947