Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :

Mr. Speaker, I take it that this

report of the committee really has the effect of side-tracking the bill, and that no action wilt be taken along this line at this session. I am not sufficiently familiar with the procedure of this House to know whether a recommendation of this charac-tre would even bind the Government to introduce legislation along this line at the next session. I noticed that it was stated in committee, I think by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) that even if this bill were passed in this House, it 'would be rejected by the Senate, because of the one who introduced it. It seems to me that is rather a serious reflection upon the Senate, for I take it that any bill ought to be discussed and decided upon on its merits, and not because of the particular individual who brings it before the House. Further than that, it would seem to be a very strange thing if this House should be dissuaded from presenting a piece of legislation for fear the Senate would reject it. I take it that it is our duty to bring before this House these measures which we consider in the general welfare and to treat them on their merits.

There are several things to which, it seems to me, attention ought to be called. After all the various meetings of the committee only three minor recommendations are brought in. I would call attention to the fact that the bill provided for certain revisions with regard to two different parts of the Immigration Act. The amendment to the act was passed in 1919. And an amendment to that amendment passed

Immigration-Criminal Code

a few days later. The report does not deal at all with the original amendment; but refers merely to the amendment to the amendment, leaving the original amendment, which is absolutely vicious in character, altogether untouched. We are told in the recommendation of the committee, that these words should be repealed.

Or is suspected, of belonging to.

I agree with that; it is good as far as it goes. But that would still leave the amendment untouched. The committee recommends that we should take out the retroactive sections. That, too, is good as far as it goes. There is further recommendation that these clauses should not apply to Canadian citizens. They do not apply today, and that is the very point of the bill. It is barely possible that relief may be given to one particular class, the British citizen who has been naturalized in Canada, although, so far as my study of the bill goes, I think there is just a possibility that it might not apply to him. As the bill stands it means that any one born outside of Canada, whether alien or British-born, is liable to deportation. The essential part of this legislation lies in this. Section 41 in the amendment, which is not touched, and which as well as the amendment to the amendment, provides that certain classes shall be incapable of becoming Canadian citizens since they are not able to establish domicile. The section reads:

Provided that the time spent by a person while confined in or an immate of any penitentiary, gaol, reformatory, prison or asylum for the insane in Canada shall not be counted in the period of residence in Canada wh.ch is necessary in order to acquire Canadian domicile, and provided further that no person who belongs to the prohbited or undesirable classes within the meaning of section forty-one of this act shall 1 be capable of acquiring Canadian domicile.

Now turn to section 41-not the section 41 to which the Chairman of the committee made referecne, but section 41 of the original amendment-which reads:

Whenever any person.... shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government; such person for the purposes of this act shall be considered as belonging to the prohibited or undesirable classes, and shall be liable to deportation.

That is to say, whether a man has been in this country one year or twenty years,

whether he has been naturalized or not, if he is deemed undesirable according to this classification he is incapable of obtaining Canadian domicile and in that case is liable to deportation. Let me say in passing that while the committee recommends that the section in Chap. 26 should be amended by striking out the word "suspected", that word still stands in this section of Chap. 25.

Any person suspected of an offence under this section may forthwith be arrested and detained without warrant by any officer foi examination and deportation.

Now, the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) has been advocating a particular immigration policy during the past few weeks. Some members on this side have opposed that policy. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has (been rigorously opposing that policy in so far as it relates to juvenile immigrants. Well, suppose his opposition becomes obnoxious to the Minister of Immigration. He thereby becomes undesirable; he may be classed as an agitator, and I presume there would be some presumptive evidence to substantiate that classification in the fact that he comes from Ireland. Under the circumstances there is nothing whatever in this act to prohibit the Minister of Immigration from declaring my hon. friend undesirable and deporting him to Ireland without trial. It is that sort of thing we want to put beyond the range of possibility. We want to see to it that the hon. member for Bow River-this is purely a supposititious case, of course,-if he is regarded by the minister as undesirable, shall be tried before a jury, and that the matter shall not be disposed of by a minister of the Crown. I shall move, seconded by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) :

That the second report of the Special Committee on Bill No. 16 be not concurred in but that the same be sent back to the Special Committee to amend the bill by providing that no one shall be deported for any political offence committed in Canada without being granted a trial by jury.

It may be that there were some clauses in my bill as introduced which did not exactly meet the situation. I quite conceded that at the time, and when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that the matter be referred to a special committee I very gladly accepted the suggestion, because it seemed to me only reasonable that in the committee the whole question could be better threshed out and what was faulty in the wording of the bill could be improved so that the result aimed

Immigration-Criminal Code

at might be achieved. I fully agree with the finding of the committee that it is highly desirable that the whole Immigration Act should be redrafted. It has been amended and reamended until it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain exactly what its purport is. But I should like to see the provision which I propose incorporated in the act at this session of Parliament. It has been admitted that this legislation was placed on the statute books during a time of hysteria, just after the war, and hon. members on both sides of the House are agreed that it is no longer necessary. Indeed, Sir, I can hardly conceive of a Liberal government, headed by a Prime Minister who is the grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie, refusing to grant us legislation of this character. My amendment provides that no one shall be deported for any political offence committed in Canada without being granted a trial by jury. This legislation which I seek to amend is not intended primarily to keep people out of the country; its purpose is to deal with people already in Canada. I am not referring to the question of political offences committed in the Old Country by prospective immigrants, my proposal has reference to any offences that may be alleged to have been committed by people in this country. Nor am I speaking of that class of immigrants who may be physically or mentally defective, who may become paupers, or who may have committed some crime other than political. I am speaking purely of political offences, because it is in this respect that our objection applies. I am not condoning political offences, but I do say that, when such an offence is alleged to have been committed, the whole question should not be decided in camera by a minister of the Crown but rather that the people of the country, through a jury, should give their decision as to whether or not the offence has been committed and hence that accused deserves deportation. When introducing this bill I made an appeal to French speaking Canadians to join with English speaking Canadians in giving this measure of relief to the British-'born in this country. Personally, I have no particular concern in the matter as I happen to be Canadian born; yet as a Canadian it does materially affect me, for I feel ashamed that our statute books should contain legislation that deprives my British-born friends and comrades of their right to trial by jury. And I would speak not merely of the British-born but also of the foreign-born in this country. We are 2103

spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to attract immigrants, and certainly it ought to be the proud iboast of Canadians that any man who comes here to make this country his home will at least get a fair chance. In North Winnipeg members of the Canadian Club have erected a flag pole from which they sometimes fly the Union Jack, hoping in this way to make good Canadian citizens of the foreigners who are living in that section of the city. I would suggest that you may fly the flag for a long time, but you are not going to make the foreign-born good Canadian citizens as long as there is gross injustice existing under that flag.

Question.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Yes, it is "question." I am not going to detain hon. members much longer, but this is an important question I submit, Mr. Speaker, which I was asked to bring before this House by my constituents and iby labour locals throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. If we can take a long time, as we did last night, in deciding whether or not we should tax substitutes for milk at a time when many of our people have not the wherewithal to buy milk, it seems to me we can at least afford a few minutes to discuss whether or not we shall maintain rights that the British people have enjoyed since the time of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. Therefore I move my resolution to amend the bill by providing that: -no one shall be deported tor any political offence committed in Canaida without being granted a trial by jury.

I trust that I shall have the support of members generally for what seems to be a reasonable request.

Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg) :

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the special committee which considered the matter under discussion. The committee after considering the bill for a short time came to the conclusion that it was impossible to recommend its passage in the form presented, for it had the effect of doing many things which its promoters evidently did not intend, and of doing many other things with which the committee could not agree. As a result we asked the House for permission to make a special report, and the chairman of the committee has just presented it to the House.

That special report has been made in this form because we found that the deportation clauses of the Immigration Act were in such a confused condition that we

Immigration-Criminal Code

could not, within any reasonable time, propose to the House any amendments which would meet all the considerations the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) wished to have brought forward or that the members of the committee themselves thought should be dealt with. We have therefore made this report, bringing to the attention of the House three matters which we all agreed ought to be corrected. We did not intend in any way

to limit the scope of the revision of the act; we left that open for the House, or for the body which the House might appoint, to deal with in the future. We had no desire to limit in any way any proposal which the hon member for Centre Winnipeg might wish to put forward when a new bill in a form which could reasonably be considered should be brought before the House.

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) :

It seems to me that the House should accept the report of the committee. I have ,no particular objection to the amendment suggested by my friend from Centre Winnipeg, except that I have discovered that when you suddenly interject amendments into an act without due consideration you do not know how far they may extend. Clearly, it may be a good thing to say that a British subject should not be deported without trial by jury; but to say that any one who happens to get into Canada-and many people enter without the knowledge of the immigration officials-should not be deported without trial by jury for what might be construed to be a political offence does not seem to me reasonable, because the term "political offence" covers a very wide field, if my hon. friend will allow me to say so, and we would meet with innumerable difficulties in deporting undesirables who ought to be deported almost immediately. Therefore I ask the House to accept the report of the committee and await a revision of the act.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon.

member for Centre Winnipeg has submitted an amendment which I must put to the House. The motion by Mr. Archam-bault, seconded by Mr. Hudson, is:

That the House concur in the reiport.

Mr. Woodsworth moves an amendment, seconded by Mr. Irvine:

That the third report of the special committee ot. Bill No. 16 be not concurred in, but that the

same be sent back to the special committee to amend the bill by providing that no one shall be deported for any political offence committed in Canada without being granted a trial by jury.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I had not heard the amendment until you read it now, Mr. Speaker. If I caught its words aright, there would seem to me to be some question as to its being in order. A committee has not power to amend a bill; it has power only to amend its own report. The wording of the amendment would appear to ask the committee to amend the bill. If so, whether in order or not, it obviously demands a negative because of the impossibility of conceding what it requests. .

I turn now to a discussion of the mam motion. If I caught the report correctly as described by the chairman of the committee, it is to the effect that the criminal law be not now altered, but that the Immigration Act be altered; that is to say, that new legislation be introduced as soon as possible looking-

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

We did not

touch the criminal code; we dealt only with the Immigration Act.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is what I was saying.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Did not the committee receive special power from this House to amend the bill? If I understood aright, it was given power to make a special report on the bill.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I understood the chairman of the committee to say that it received power to make a special report beyond the specific purview of the two bills committed to it. But, of course, that committee never received any power to amend the bill. Anyway, its report recommends an amendment to the Immigration Act, and that alone, the amendment leaving the act in the shape in which it would have been left if the bill introduced in 1920 in the Senate by Senator Robertson, then Minister of Labour, had carried through both Houses, or if the bill introduced last session in this House had passed the Senate. In substance that is the report of the committee. I concur in the report.

The amendment to the Immigration Act to which Bill No. 16 specifically refers, and which it seeks to repeal, was passed in the spring of 1919. It had the effect of placing immigrants of a certain class, though they may have come from Great Britain

Immigration-Criminal Code

in the category as to power of deportation that immigrants of a similar class or other undesirable classes had already been in who came from another country. Much of what has been urged by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), and, from his point of view, consistently, because he believes in changing the whole law-not only in wiping out the amendment of 1919, but in altering the whole basis of the deportation law; everything, indeed-

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the Opposition on what basis he founds that statement?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I found it on the basis of the amendment moved just now by the hon. member. If I understand his motion aright it instructs the committee to amend the bill-we will put it in order, and say to amend the report-and to make it read that all guilty of what he describes as political offences, no matter from what country they have come, shall be deportable only after conviction by a jury. Well, I say that virtually all he has urged in favour of the striking out of the original Immigration Act amendment of 1919 is an argument in favour of changing the whole basis of the deportation law in that regard and placing upon the authorities the burden of conviction as a necessary precedent to the deportation of a man even coming- say from Poland. From his own point of view that is consistent, but do we want to alter the whole immigration law in that regard? What I am trying to emphasize is this: it has been the law as long as I can remember that anyone but a British subject coming to this country is deportable without the necessity of an indictment and going through the whole procedure of a criminal prosecution-that is, deportable if in the judgment of immigration officials, concurred in by the minister, he is of a certain undesirable class. And among the undesirable classes is the class known as anarchists, whose professed principles are against government of every kind. We have not, as far as I can remember, ever had a law making it necessary to get a conviction through process of law and the decision of a jury before such a man could be deported if he came from an outside country.

Mr. IRVINE:

Is the hon. leader of the Opposition correct when he states that this law places the British immigrant and the immigrant from other countries on the

same basis? As I understand the present law, it means this: that if a man from, say, Russia who has been naturalized here commits a crime after he receives his citizenship, he cannot be deported, but if a British subject commits such a crime after living in this country as long, say, as the Russian, he can be deported. Is that so, or is it not so?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I see there might be

a difference in a case of that sort. After the Russian is naturalized he does not, of course, come in under the regular law, and a British subject would consequently be in a different position under the amendment. But what has always been the law is this: a Russian, a Pole, or any one else coming from another country to Canada, was, if he belonged to that class, deportable under the regular machinery of the Immigration Act. Now, in the spring of 1919 it was felt desirable-and, I think, universally felt desirable; it was not a party measure in the least-that that be altered and that the same restraints and powers that had obtained in relation to immigrants from another country obtain in relation to immigrants from Great Britain. The reasons for that, of course, were to be found in the events, the temper and the very atmosphere of the time. There is nothing easier now, in the light of calmer and more peaceful years, when the psychology of the people is changing, and naturally so, as we recede from the war-nothing easier than to look back on those days and to be wise and say: "Oh, all this was just the same as now, though we did not know it; we were deceived by events; we were really ourselves the instigators of the riotous times through which we lived." Well, sometimes it is only an affected wisdom that comes with the years. At the time, the action taken was believed to be the part of wisdom. I am not one of those who feel that immigrants to Canada from the Mother Land should, under normal conditions, be treated the same as immigrants from other countries. I think we must have regard to the unity of this Empire; we must have some regard to citizenship within this Empire in the determination of all our laws. Of that I am convinced, and it has relation to immigration, perhaps, more than anything else. But this law was framed for the circumstances of the time, because we were then having very considerable difficulty with just that class of immigrants, and we felt we had to take some summary and effective method of dealing

Immigration-Criminal Code

with the difficulty if the Government was to do its duty and cope with the situation that confronted it. The amendment passed, and I am not sure that the law was ever acted upon, but I do believe it did good while it was there. I have recollection of one case, but I know it never was acted on arbitrarily. If the minister did concur in deportation under it, he took the precaution first to have an independent investigation held; in the case I have referred to I am pretty sure it was a judge of one /f the courts of Winnipeg who was called in under the Immigration Act and made a party to the investigation, and his report was acted upon. Anyway, the next year the Government, through the then Minister of Labour, introduced a bill to repeal that amendment. It failed to pass the Senate. In the Senate there was no party division; I do not know what the proportions were, but a very considerable number from both parties in the Senate-a very large majority, I think

opposed the repeal. Last year the Government took the same attitude. It felt that the time for the operation of this provision had passed; that it was no longer necessary. Accordingly, the Government introduced into this House a bill-or, rather, took over a bill introduced by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and passed it through this House; but again, under similar circumstances, it failed to pass the Senate. The committee recommends that the course pursued, but not carried to successful termination because of the negative action of the Senate in 1920 and 1921, be pursued again. I am of the same view that I was then; therefore I concur in the report of the committee.

Amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived.

Motion (Mr. Archambault) agreed to and report concurred in.