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?

Mr. 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?

Mr. SKEY:

I spoke on the resolution,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. 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.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):

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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. GILLIS:

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

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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?