Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 102) respecting immigration. He said: This Bill, in amendment of the Act which was passed in 1906, is made necessary principally because of changes of condition that have occurred since that time. While the principles of the Act of 1906 are not altered by this Bill, the law is amended in its method of operation to meet the necessity of adopting active exclusion provisions along the international boundary. When the Act of 1906 was introduced, it was framed with a view of dealing with immigrants from overseas. Although it applied to immigrants from across the line, it was especially framed to meet the other conditions. Now, it has become necessary to make similar provision for the exclusion of undesirables along the three thousand miles of frontier between Canada and the United States that we formerly had carried out at the ocean ports. And, as the Act was drawn with a view to applying to the ocean ports, it is necessary that it should be amended in its definitions and operation so as to clearly and definitely provide for the exclusion of undesirables who arrive in Canada by rail or by road. There has also arisen, since the passage of the Act of 1906, the question of Asiatic immigration. And while in that respect the Act does not require much change, still it has been thought advisable to provide for effectively dealing with that class of immigration, not so much bv the introduction of a new principle but to provide specific means for the enforcement of the existing principle. This Bill also provides for relieving the situation as it at present exists in which the government has to exercise an arbitrary authority in the exclusion of immigrants. This Bil1 provides that, under certain circumstances, a board of inquiry shall sit and decide on the merits of the cases brought before it, a record of each case being kept. When the existing law was introduced, it was not expected that there would be such an extensive enforcement of the exclusion provisions, and practically there was no machinery provided-authority was given and under that authority an order issued. This is felt to be an arbitrary method for this country, so it is deemed advisable that machinery should De provided for dealing with these cases, each case to be on record so that its merits may be understood by the public. While that provision is proposed, there is another which I place before the House now as being important. While we provide for a board of inquiry for the consideration of cases of proposed rejection at our ports or at the boundary line, we also make provision that, until an immigrant has been received into Canada-that is to say until he has passed our officers-he is not able to avail him- - COMMONS self of tlie protection of the courts. In other words, until a man has actually and legally entered Canada, he is not entitled to claim the protection of ttie courts of Canada. I state this provision of the Bill clearly and thus early in the proceedings, that its) merits-or demerits-may be understood and every opportunity afforded for discussion. If it does not meet with the approval of the House, of course the Bill can be amended in that particuiar.
Mr. HUGHES.
That is, if an immigrant is stopped by one of our immigration officers at the border before entering Canada-
Mr. OLIVER.
He would not have the right to appeal to the courts, but once he passes he is entitled to appeal to the courts. We believe that that is a reasonable and proper provision, and necessary for the better enforcement of the Act. So, while we are making provision on the one hand for a method of inquiry into each case, on the other hand we do not admit the immigrant to the protection of the courts until he has passed that inquiry.
Mr. HUGHES.
And who; will bear the cost of the appeal to the courts? The immigrant himself?
Mr. OLIVER.
Provision is made in the ordinary way that if an immigrant appeals to the court he puts up a certain amount for expense, and if the appeal is successful any unexpended balance is returned to him.
Mr. MAGRATH.
Is this the same Bill that was introduced last session?
Mr. OLIVER.
To all intents and purposes the same. The provision of which I have just spoken was contained in the Bill of last year. In the interval we have taken advantage of the information gathered, and, we think, have made improvements in the wording of the Bill.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
PUGSLEY moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 103) to amend the Navigable Waters_Protection Act. He said: This Bill, if it becomes law, will repeal sections 4 and 5 of chap. 115 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Let me read these two sections, after which 1 will state to the House what the changes are which are made by the substitution of the proposed new sections:
4. No bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau shall be constructed so as to interfere with navigation, unless the site thereof has been approved by Mr OLIVER
the Governor in Council, nor unless such bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau is built and maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Governor in Council.
5. Any bridge to which this part applies, which is built upon a site not approved by the Governor in Council, or which is not built in accordance with plans so approved, or which, having been so built, is nob maintained in accordance with such plans, may, in so far as the same interferes with navigation, be lawfully removed and destroyed under the authority of the Governor in Council.
It will be seen that section 4 makes provision for bridges, dams, booms, and aboiteau, It is a curious thing that it makes no provision for wharfs or other structures of that nature which might be erected in a navigable water although, by section 2, a work under this chapter is defined to include any bridge, boom, aboiteau, dock, pier, or other structure and the approaches or other works necessary appurtenant thereto. In the drawing of section 4, the work provided for in this section is limited in character to these four classes. Then section 5 curiously is limited to a bridge; it does not even include the other works mentioned in section 4. Another curious feature of these two sections is that they apply only to cases where these works interfere with navigation, and the question naturally arises and has arisen, as to who is to be a judge of what works interfere with navigation. By section 7 it is provided that the local authority, company or person proposing to construct any work in navigable waters, may file his plan and then if the plan is approved of he may proceed with the work.
The change which we propose making in the statutes is to extend the provisions of section 4 so as to include bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, dock, pier or other structure of any kind. The new section also pro- [DOT] vides that if such a structure is to be erected in a navigable water the plans must be filed and the usual notice given and the application made to the Minister of Public Works.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 104) to control the rates and facilities of Ocean Cable Companies, and to amend the Railway Act with respect to Telegraphs and Telephones and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. He said: Briefly this Bill is intended to bring under the control of the Railway Commission the cable companies and also the cable companies operating in conjunction with the land telegraph lines of Canada. As the subject is rather a complex one I intend to prepare a synopsis of this and the following Bill and send them to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and then on the second reading of the two Bills I shall fully explain their purpose. Everybody is aware that the railway companies, the express companies, the telegraph and telephone companies are all placed under the control of the Railway Board and we intend to bring the cable companies also under that control.
Mr. HUGHES.
Will it include Marconi wireless?
Mr. LEMIEUX.
Yes, I intend to include under this Bill the wireless companies also. When this Act comes into force, the companies will have four months within which to file with the board their tariffs. In case there are difficulties in filing the tariffs that time may be extended but not to a greater time than one year.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 105) to amend the Telegraphs Act. He said; The same explanations as I have given in reference to the preceding Bill apply to this Bill. Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.