Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:

That on Wednesday, the 13th May next, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and gov-

Immigration Act

ernment orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.

He said: This motion would have been made before, but the interruption of the business of the house on Wednesday last made me think it undesirable at that time. The intention is to give this Wednesday clear for private business, and I trust this will be satisfactory.

Right. Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING .(Leader of the Opposition): I do not wish to oppose the motion, but if its purpose is to shorten the session by enabling the government to get on with the business of the session I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the report in the press is correct to the effect that the budget will not be brought down until June. My right hon. friend a few days ago said he would probably be in a position early to advise the house when the budget would be brought down, and this might be an appropriate moment to express a view.

Mr. BENNETT:

If this motion were disposed of as worded, it would take this Wednesday also from private members. That was not intended; it was intended that private members should have this coming Wednesday, so that the motion will have to be changed a little to read:

That after Wednesday, the 13th May next . . .

I should like to take the house into my confidence as to the cause of the delay in making an announcement. The illness of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man) has greatly retarded the work in which I am engaged, and by reason of the seriousness of his illness, I am unable to make a definite statement. We had certain very definite matters arranged for a certain definite date, and that day he was taken ill. He has not been able to come to Ottawa since, but in no event shall we postpone the budget until June, I can assure my right hon. friend, although I shall have to go on without the assistance of the hon. gentleman who has given a great deal of attention to the matter during the last two months, and who has taken extraordinary care with respect to a large number of items. Without his assistance I feel very much lost, but that is the position and I think it is right to say so to the house.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):

I wish to table a copy of an

article intituled: A Decade of Development, which was given to the press some little time ago by S. W. Fairweather, Director of Bureau of Economics, Canadian National Railways, and which was requested by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) and I think some other hon. members.

Explain.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

As the Immigration Act now stands, it is possible for a variety of causes to deport people, no matter how long they have resided in Canada. Last year there were several cases that aroused a good deal of public interest, one case in which a woman was deported after some eighteen years' residence in Canada. Her connections in the old country had been broken up; she had during all those years established connections in this country and suddenly, because of some physical ailment of a rather serious character, she was deported. There have been a large number of cases of a similar character. Therefore I propose in this amendment that there should be no deportation after ten years' continuous residence. Just as in certain insurance policies there is a definite period after which the policy becomes non-contestable, after ten years' continuous residence in this country no one could be deported.

The second clause relates to those who have been resident for ten years in Canada and who may have been forced to go, we will say, to the United States for a short period to seek work. They very often find themselves unable to return to this country although they have lived here for a large number of years, and there have been certain cases where they have been threatened with deportation to the countries from which they originally came. The second clause would permit them, if everything else was all right, to enter Canada on account of their having resided in this country for ten years. I might put it a little more correctly in this way: after ten years' residence in Canada, they would not be precluded from reentering this country simply for the reason that they had gone elsewhere on this continent for a short period.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Explain.

Mr. MacINNIS:

The present Canada

Shipping Act is a rather old piece of legislation, and very much out of harmony with modern industrial conditions. The purpose of these amendments is to put the conditions under which seamen have to live and work more in line with modern industrial standards.

The first amendment provides for the physical examination of seamen. There is no provision for that in the present act. It has been brought to my attention that on occasions seamen suffering from contagious or infectious diseases have been taken aboard ship, or they have been taken ill after coming on board, thus creating a menace to the health of the other members of the crew.

The next amendment provides for more efficient inspection of water and provisions supplied for the crew than now prevails. At the present time the act provides only that the seamen may complain and if their complaint is not upheld by the person making the inspection, they are penalized for making the complaint. It also provides for a scale of provisions for the crew, somewhat more extensive than that for which the regulations now provides. There is also a provision for regulation of the hours of work and for compensation to seamen injured in the course of their employment. There is another provision that only ships registered in Canada shall engage in the coastal trade of Canada.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :

I think it well to say to the hon.

gentleman that certain of his observations as heard by me are in conflict with legislation over which at the moment we have very limited control. The statute of Westminster will clear up the situation. I mention this at the moment because I may not have caught the exact purport of his remarks but as the matter now stands, many of his suggestions could not be acted upon by this parliament.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):

Might I point out that the whole act is obsolete and has been for the last twenty-five years. It is not these amendments alone that are out of date, the whole act is in need of revision.

Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :

Is it not a fact that in view of the

deliberations of the 1929 and 1930 Imperial conferences, the revision of the Canada Shipping Act will have to be considered?

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. gentleman is

quite correct. If the proposals of Westminster

are adopted by both houses of parliament and the statute of Westminster passed, this will entail the entire revision of the Canada Shipping Act as well as the revision of many other acts that are upon the statute books at the present moment.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

It is better to wait another year.