Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to announce that the President of the United States of America will visit Ottawa on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week. The president will be accompanied by Mrs. Truman and Miss Truman.

The invitation to visit Canada was conveyed some time ago to the President, on behalf of of the government, both by His Excellency the Governor General and by myself as Prime Minister.

I am sure it will be gratifying to hon. members that, notwithstanding personal anxieties of recent weeks, the President has found it possible to carry out his visit as planned. Hon. members will likewise be delighted that Mrs. Truman and Miss Truman will be with the President.

The President and his official party will leave Washington on the afternoon of Monday, June 9, and .will arrive at Ottawa at 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 10. The President will be met at the Canadian border and be accompanied to Ottawa by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), and Mr. Atherton, the Ambassador of the United States.

On arrival at Ottawa, the President and Mrs. Truman will be met by His Excellency the Governor General and the Viscountess Alexander and by myself. Others present will include Madame St. Laurent and Mrs. Atherton, the Canadian Ambassador to the United States and Mrs. Wrong, and His Worship the Mayor of Ottawa and Mrs. Lewis.

Visit oj President Truman

The President's train will not be brought in to the Union station, but will be stopped at Island Park drive, to permit of the President and his party approaching the city and driving to government house by way of the experimental farm and the canal driveway, as was arranged at the time of the visit of the King and Queen. A guard of honour will be mounted at Rideau gate. On the President's arrival at Government house, there will be a salute of 21 guns.

In the evening, a state dinner and reception will be given at government house by Their Excellencies the Governor General and Lady Alexander.

On the morning of Wednesday, June 11, the President will address a meeting of members of both houses of parliament. Hon. members are asked to assemble in this chamber at 11.30 a.m. The proceedings will commence at 11.45 and will be broadcast over a national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

At 12.30, at the conclusion of the morning's proceedings, the President will leave the parliament buildings by the main entrance, and will drive by way of Bank street, Laurier avenue and Elgin street, to the national war memorial, where the President will lay a wreath at the foot of the memorial.

Following this ceremony, members of both houses will be afforded the honour of meeting the President at a parliamentary luncheon to be held at the Chateau Laurier.

The President and Mrs. Truman have kindly accepted an invitation to be my guests at dinner at Laurier house on Wednesday evening.

Thursday, June 12, is being kept free of official engagements so that the President and his party may have a day for relaxation. In the evening, the President and Mrs. Truman will be the guests of the United States Ambassador and Mrs. Atherton at dinner at the United States embassy.

The President will leave Ottawa, by train, later the same evening.

Mr. II. C. GREEN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say a word on behalf of the official opposition concerning the announcement just made by the Prime Minister?

We are delighted to learn that President Truman is to visit Canada while parliament is in session. It is always a great privilege and pleasure to receive the head of the United States, our cousin nation and trusted ally. Particularly is that so on this occasion, because senators and members, representing Canadians from coast to coast, will be able to participate in the welcome and to hear the President

speak on the floor of the Canadian House of Commons. His visit is one more indication of the good will prevailing between our peoples. Quite apart from the formal welcome to the President, we are glad to welcome him, his wife and daughter, as individuals. I am sure I speak for all members of the house when I say we feel that they are old friends. We have noticed their great capacity for friendliness, that trait which is so characteristic of citizens of the United States. We of the official opposition trust that our distinguished visitors will thoroughly enjoy their stay in Canada.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown- Biggar):

May I immediately associate the C.C.F. party with what the acting leader of the opposition has so well said. I think he expresses the feeling of all of us when he says we are delighted to hear that the President of the United States has accepted the cordial invitation extended by the government and will be among us as the representative of a great people. I think we can all assure the Prime Minister that the invitation will be appreciated by the Canadian people-the acceptance of it even more so-and that they all will join in welcoming President Truman as the head of our great and friendly neighbour.

Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I take much satisfaction in joining with the two speakers who have preceded me in saying how much we appreciate the Prime Minister's announcement. We look forward with keen anticipation to hearing the President of the United States receive the welcome which I am sure the people of Canada will accord to him.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave of the house to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the action of the government in authorizing certain Canadian industrialists to select individuals from displaced persons' camps in Europe and bring such individuals to work in Canada under contract, it being the traditional policy of parliament that the importation of indentured labour should be completely prohibited, which means that the selection of displaced persons and refugees and their admission to this country should be directed entirely by the federal government with a view to resettling these people as free human beings in such a way as to serve their best interests and those of the Canadian people as well.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I thank the hon. gentleman for sending me a copy of the motion before the opening of the house. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman be given leave to move the adjournment of the house?

And leave having been given:

Mr. COLDWELL:

Mr. Speaker, I should explain at the outset that I am introducing this motion for the adjournment of the house in order that we may discuss this matter, which is of urgent public importance in view of the reports which have been appearing in the press that industrialists have proceeded to the displaced persons' camps in Europe in order to select persons for their industries in Canada. I should also like to say that I regret that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) is not in his seat this afternoon. I did send him a note before lunch telling him that I was going to raise this question, and I was hoping that he would be present this afternoon.

If we look over the correspondence which has been tabled in the house and the various reports which have appeared in the press, it will be evident at, once why it is that we have thought it well that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of discussing the policy which underlies the movement of these persons to Canada at this time. The other afternoon I asked a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and referred to the Alien Labour Act, which is chapter 109 of the revised statutes of Canada, referring him particularly to section 2. I said at once that I knew there were certain sections in that act which gave the government power to do anything that was necessary in order to promote immigration into Canada; but I would draw the attention of the house to what I believe has been the traditional policy not only of this parliament but of the parliaments of the British commonwealth. Section 2 in its principal words says:

It shall be unlawful for any person ... to prepay the transportation or in any way to assist, encourage or solicit the importation or immigration of any alien or foreigner into Canada, under contract or agreement ... to perform labour or service of any kind in Canada.

So I submit at the outset that this action on the part of the government in permitting industrialists to go to Europe at this time and bring labour into this country under contract is a violation of the intent of this law. I say at once, of course, that I do not regard the bringing into Canada of persons by their relatives, under permission granted by this house through orders in council that have been tabled, as a violation of this law; but I also want to say that from time to time we have had individuals asking for the admission to this country of their relatives, and we have found it very difficult indeed to obtain permission for them to bring their relatives to this country, for a good many reasons. Yet in this particular instance, and in the instances now under discussion in the country, every facility is being given for medical examination, immigration inspection and so on, in order that these people may be brought into the country under contract.

I would draw the attention of the house to the letter written to the then Secretary of State on October 9, 1946, which was included in the correspondence tabled at my request, and to which there was no reply. In that letter the hon. member for Beauce said:

We are producing about two carloads, nearly one-third of the machineries are idle and there is such a turn-over of female help that we are practically operating with learners most or the time. For instance, last year we had a turnover of 555 girls in this plant.

Labour Conditions

At the time that struck me as being a large turnover. If we turn to the Montreal Gazette of Saturday last, May 31, we find a statement attributed to the hon. member for Beauce,

I think in error, since I believe it should have been attributed to his manager who was making the statement surrounding it, as follows:

There are about 425 employees in the plant, and all seem to be quite satisfied with their working conditions.

If there are only 425 employees in the plant and in the previous year, according to his own words, there was a turnover of 555, I submit that careful investigation should have been made before this permission was granted. In the same letter to which I have just referred we find this statement:

The situation here is very bad regarding female help. Last year I built ten nine-apartment houses to take care of large families. I have kept a man with an automobile travelling all over the province since a year to gather poor families that could not find their living in the agricultural places, and which had four or five girls for a family. Up to date I have been successful to bring only seven families.

Then this very interesting sentence follows:

The trouble seems that the people have too much money to spend.

That should have immediately warned the government that the reasons for bringing in these girls might not have been those which have been stated across the country. "The trouble seems to be that the people have too much money to spend."

It is our opinion that under no circumstances should the government permit an individual employer to go abroad and import contract labour into this country. We want to see every facility provided for bringing to this country' displaced persons who are suffering in the displaced persons' camps; but we think that should be done under the most careful supervision of the department of immigration, of the proper officials of the government and of this House of Commons, and not left to any individual or group of individuals who have a vested interest in the labour of distressed people, who may desire to go overseas and bring back contract labour. In the Montreal Gazette of last Saturday I find that the manager of the plant made this statement to the press:

After the girls have paid back their fares, approximately $300 each, they are free to leave at any time.

One of the girls stated:

We signed a contract to work for Mr. Dionne for two years. We are not allowed to leave or get married during that time.

The statement of the girl herself is that this is part of the contract. I say immediately that I saw a denial of that in the paper today.

Mr. MITCHELL:

My hon. friend is a

married man. He should know you cannot make a contract like that.

Mr. COLDWELL:

My hon. friend the

minister says you cannot make a contract like that. I want to say to the Minister of Labour and the acting minister of immigration that the contract should have been tabled in this house. I asked for it, and I expected it to be found among the papers that were tabled; but the contract was not there. If this is not part of the contract, we would have known it immediately had the contract been tabled in the house. I quite agree with the Minister of Labour that if this is in the contract it is not or should not be an enforceable clause; but the very fact that this girl stated it was part of the contract lends colour to the belief that they think it is in the contract, in any event, whether or not that is so. Of course the two statements 1 have just read are conflicting. According to the first one, after the girls have paid back their fares of approximately $300 they are free to leave at any time. With regard to the marriage provision, in the Toronto Star in its night edition of May 31, 1947, which is in the parliamentary reading room, the manager of the plant, a Mr. Adams, is quoted as saying:

It is a disgrace for a married woman to work down here no matter how great her need.

This may lend some colour to the suggestion that these girls were warned that they were not to marry within the two-year period.

Now I come to another very serious side of this whole matter. What are the conditions under which these girls are to work in that plant? What are the conditions under which the men will work who may be brought in by industrialists who are said to be going to Europe to choose people for the logging industry? Are these conditions to be agreed upon with representatives of the workers, or are the conditions to be laid down by an individual employer, or between employer and employee only? I notice that one of the employees in the rayon industry, Gedeon Rancour, is quoted as having said:

There are local girls who asked for jobs two weeks ago at the Dionne mills and were refused.

Apparently the conditions in the plant are such that the local girls will not take jobs there. The same man, Rancour, who was an employee of the plant, said that-

After working six years as a machinist at the Dionne mills, he was fired early this week, for

Labour Conditions

his union sympathies. "After six years I was making only 47 cents an hour, or $28 a week." "I have heard of only one man in the plant who is making 50 cents an hour," he continued. "Another, a machinist makes 55 cents an hour. The highest is a maintenance man who makes 60 cents an hour. Last week Lucien Pelletier, the plant superintendent, called me into the foreman's cloak room and said: 'You have kicked

about the Polish girls coming here. Two union men have been here and you seemed happy about that. You had better leave'."

If that statement is true it gives a clue to one of the reasons why the employer is anxious to bring this type of labour into the plant, and why it is that there is no union in this particular plant.

The organizer for the Textile Workers of America, Bob Gareau, is quoted as follows: "I have never been in a town where I have been so enthusiastically received," he said. "I have talked to most of the Dionne employees and I have had men who are heads of families tell me they are making no more than $14 a week. One girl told me she is making $11 a week and that her father is making $15 a week. I haven't spoken to a man yet who makes more than $28 a week. Most of them make from $11 to $15."

If these conditions are as outlined in the public press then I say the government of Canada, and particularly the department of immigration, have been derelict in their duty in not going into this matter more carefully than apparently has been done, and seeing to it that these girls were not brought into the country under the conditions which have been described.

It is true that arrangements have been made for their reception. I have no doubt that the conditions under which they will live will be good morally, but that does not in any way mitigate the situation.

No one can accuse me of having religious prejudices. By way of preface I should say that back in 1920 and 1921, when I was an officer of the teachers federation in my prov-ihce, my own church, the Anglican church, set out to bring in a number of teachers on the basis of their being members of that church.

I opposed that, because I did not think religion should in any sense govern the entry of a person into Canada or his employment when he gets here. It is unfortunate that the religious angle enters into this matter at all, and that the people who come in are chosen for their religious faith. It is a mistake, and it is something the government and all of us will regret.

I say again that we are not opposed to the bringing of persons to this country from displaced persons camps. We have urged it. We have urged it publicly across the country, and in this house. We have joined with others on all sides of the house and in the country in

urging that Canada should do more for these suffering people than she has done up to the present time. I repeat that now. But, sir, we have an obligation to the people in displaced persons camps who are to be brought here, to see to it that conditions under which they come are such as we would expect a free Canada to provide for them on their arrival- people who should have come here, as the motion to adjourn says, as free human beings and not as contract labour.

The history of this parliament and of parliaments of nations of the commonwealth associated with us are filled with discussions of indentured labour, and over the week-end I looked up some of these discussions. In the discussions which occurred in 1905 and 1906 in the British House of Commons I saw how repugnant indentured labour was to the Liberal government which was elected in Great Britain in 1906. Indentured labour should be equally repugnant, not only to a government which calls itself Liberal-with a capital L- but to those in this country who share what we call the liberal tradition, with a small 1- that condition of freedom of thought, freedom of action and freedom of association we all prize so highly.

The Minister of Labour has entered into agreement regarding another group of people who are now in camps. But when one contrasts the agreement which has been entered into with respect to this other group with the understanding or the contract under which these girls are entering, and the guarantees which the men are to receive in the logging industry, one sees immediately the great difference. I understand that there is a shortage of skilled labour, for example, in the three needle workers trades. The manufacturers and the three unions involved I am told have cooperated and have seen the Minister of Labour, have come to an understanding among themselves-and I believe the Minister of Labour has approved that understanding- for the relief of that shortage of labour in the textile or needleworking trades by the entry into this country of suitably skilled persons.

The international ladies garment workers, the hat and millinery workers, and the men's garment workers organization-the amalgamated clothing union-entered into negotiations which the manufacturers and with the minister, with the result that they unanimously agreed that the government should permit the entry of several hundred skilled persons recruited from displaced persons camps for the industry. They are to be screened by the government, and the government is bringing them in. The government

Labour Conditions

is to supervise the immigration of these people in every particular, although it is suggested, I am told, that liaison persons representing the unions and the industry might accompany the officials in order to see that the persons so chosen are skilled labour as required. But the agreement is that such persons as come in under this arrangement shall not be called upon, I am told, to assume any responsibility, personally, other than that which any other immigrant would assume in coming to this country-not even repayment of their travelling expenses. It is laid down that the employer shall provide union wages and conditions for the workers who come in for entry into these trades. That is an entirely different kind of agreement from the one under which these girls are coming in. There is no stipulation that they shall join unions- although I say frankly it is quite likely they will, because it so happens that the trades I have just mentioned are pretty well organized, and in all probability they will join their unions.

I know it is said that we run the risk of bringing communists into this country. Well, there has been careful screening of those in the displaced persons camps in Europe, and in the main I would say that practically in all cases the people who are communists have returned to their countries of origin, or, if fascists, have been evicted. The communists have governments with which they agree. In all probability the people who remain in the displaced persons camps are those of various political views, many of them similar to the views held by hon. members on various sides of the house, including those of the party for which I am speaking today.

The understanding I have just mentioned is the kind of planned entry into Canada of which one can approve. It is filling a need in Canada; it is extending to people who have been given asylum and refuge an opportunity to find a home under proper conditions in this country, and to become, as we all are, free citizens of a free country, free to associate and to do as they please as long as they turn out their day's work according to the best of their ability and observe the law.

Should anything go wrong with any one of the Polish girls, and should the department of immigration be called upon to deport her-[DOT] perhaps not for a violation of the contract, because that could not be done, but for some other misdemeanour under the regulations-to what country is she to be deported? These girls are not German citizens, even though they come from Germany. They are Polish nationals. May I say to the Secretary of

State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) that it would have been at least the kind of courtesy for which the right hon. gentleman is so deservedly known to have notified the minister of the Polish government in this city that this large group of Polish nationals was coming into this country.

Mr. BRADETTE:

A farce. .

I say it would have been a courtesy to do so. Others may not agree with that point of view, but if any one of these girls has to be deported to Poland, what will happen? May I say to the hon. gentlemen who are objecting, the Polish government is a government friendly to this country; it is a government with which we maintain friendly relations. I am a little bit tired of hearing friendly governments-I may disagree with their ideology, but a year or so ago they were our gallant allies and they were praised to the skies for the sacrifices that they undertook in the common cause-being met with the kind of response that we have just heard when I said it would have been a matter merely of courtesy to let the Polish minister know, because at some time or other one or more of these Polish nationals may have to be returned to the country of origin.

The bringing of indentured labour into this country is against all the traditions of our democratic institutions. I could find no precedent for it in recent years. In order to find a precedent I had to go back to the early days of this century when employers brought oriental labour into this country for their railroad operations. I am not comparing the conditions under which these girls are being brought in with the conditions under which that labour was brought in, but I am saying that this is a violation of our traditional position; it is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms; it is a violation of the principles we approved when we signed the charter of the united nations. These people should have come in under the control of the government of Canada and under conditions which had been carefully looked into to see that they were to be given every opportunity of being integrated into the life of this country as Canadian citizens and finding happy homes here.

I have moved that we adjourn in order to discuss this matter which is of particular urgency because of the press reports which tell us, first, that if this experiment is satisfactory as far as the owner of this mill is concerned, other girls will be brought into the country under the same conditions; and second, that other industrialists are going over on the same sort of mission. We say that if we are to have a planned immigration policy

Labour Conditions

for the relief of human misery it should be carried out by this parliament; it should be done according to the best traditions of Canada. As members of this House of Commons we should say in no uncertain terms that we disapprove the manner in which this deal was undertaken.

Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to tell you that I rise to speak on this motion without any notice. Obviously there is no notice of a motion of this kind. May I congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Coldwell) who has just taken his seat. I agree heartily with him that this is a matter of urgent public importance, and I am pleased indeed that he moved the motion he did.

In dealing with this matter we find that there are two desirable things which to some extent are in opposition to one another; hence our thinking may be a bit confused. I am sure we are all agreed that this country should do all it possibly can for the people in displaced persons camps in Europe. On the other hand we are aware that certain industries are short of labour; certainly labour is very short indeed in some of the heavier industries. So we want two things: We want to assist these persons, who are living under conditions which are far from favourable, and at the same time we want to supply our industries with necessary labour. It seems to me that the only place where there is any room for logical difference is as to the methods employed to bring about those two most desirable objectives.

I must say that I go a long way with the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) on the broad statement that he made, that this should be a matter of general government policy. I realize that it must be government policy, and I use the word "general" for this reason: it is not so long ago that we in this House of Commons were discussing and dealing with a general immigration policy. It seems to me that if at that time there was in the mind of the government the idea of bringing in contract labour, it should have been disclosed then. We should not have been left in the position of having an announcement made as a fait accompli, having the order in council already passed and the announcement made that the man was in Europe, that being the first we learned about it in the House of Commons.

I make that criticism, sir, with very great respect. I fully realize that many things have to be done quickly in order that any government may operate, but it does seem to me that this is a sharp departure from the policy

which has been followed in this country for a long time, and that it should not have been done without the house first having been taken into the confidence of the government. I realize that the minister of immigration has been ill, and that it may take some time for other persons to take over his onerous duties, but it is at least unfortunate that the house did not have an opportunity of discussing this sharp departure in policy until after the thing had actually been done.

I turn to another side of the picture, and that is the legal question. I am not going to decide it at the moment; I think that is probably the government's headache. Offhand I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is a little wrong in his law and that he will find an exception in the act which bars its application to the circumstances we have at the present time. I am not going to say anything more with respect to this particular problem except to emphasize once more what we have tried to emphasize all along in this house, and that is that major changes in policy are matters for the House of Commons, and we should not be told about them after they have taken place.

With respect to the separate issue in the mills outside of Montreal I intend to make no comment. I feel that I have not sufficient facts on which to comment. I am sorry that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) is not here, because it seems to me that he could have had many things to say which might have cast a different light on the reports we are getting through the press. So with respect to that I say nothing by way of either criticism or commendation, except that I relate it as a glaring example of a change in traditional policy, to use the phrase used by my hon. friend. With respect, sir, may I suggest that matters of this kind be brought before the House of Commons where we can do a bit of digging when a change in policy is . contemplated? I agree with the change. We are all flooded with letters from persons who want to come here but who perhaps do not come within a certain degree of relationship and so on, but we shall never fulfil our industrial needs with that class. It seems to me important that we shall not leave here without having something more definite than farm work regulations in order that the industry of this country may be able to carry on, and in order that we may not have the type of unfavourable newspaper publicity that we have had in the past two weeks in respect to these one hundred poor girls who think

Labour Conditions

they may be moving into heaven and who certainly have come from almost unbelievable hell.

Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house very long, but I do feel that I should say just a word. I believe that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party, has performed a real service'to this country by bringing before the house this question of the importation of indentured labour; for that is exactly what it is. It has no relationship whatever to an immigration policy; it is strictly the importation of indentured labour, and I speak for this group when I say that we are opposed to that practice. It does not relate itself in any way to a well-defined democratic immigration policy.

I believe, too, as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has said, that there are grave doubts in the minds of the people across this country whether the practice may not become a fixture. I do not want to see anyting like that in this country.

The purpose of an immigration policy, it seems to me, should be twofold: in the first place to help populate this country with desirable people and in the second place to do our share at least in assisting these unfortunate souls who find themselves today in the displaced persons camps in Europe. I want to see Canada do her share in that, of course, but I should like to see those who do come to Canada brought here under the careful supervision of this government and of this parliament, and not under contract to any industrialist. I am definitely opposed to immigration by vested interests. Our group in this house are united in demanding a well-defined and comprehensive immigration policy that will be operated in the interests of the people of Canada and of the people who do come to Canada. We certainly cannot hold up our heads with pride in what we do unless the people who come to our shores come as free men and free women.

I am surprised in the extreme, Mr. Speaker, that the government of this country has permitted an industrialist to go over to Europe and to select, to screen by himself, to inspect or to arrange for inspection and obtain transportation for substantial groups of workers and bring them to this country in a comparatively short period of time. I have had considerable dealings with the Department of Immigration in an effort to open the door to desirable Europeans, and I find excuses being given all the time, excuses like this: Oh, we cannot do anything now

because we have not the facilities for inspection; we have no facilities for gathering these people and seeing to it that they have no communicable diseases; furthermore, we cannot possibly get transportation to bring them here. That is what is said when applications are made to bring in men, women and children, relatives of those who originally came from Europe and have been good citizens of Canada for many years. I say it is a reflection on the government and it certainly is a condemnation of the lack of definite immigration policy, that these worthy people have been denied entry to our country while at the same time industrialists are able to go from this country to Europe and gather together the people they want and bring them here under special contract, and in a very short time. I am not at all satisfied that the sort of thing that is being done by the member for Beauce is in any way in the interests of this country.

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, while this is purely an immigration question and comes under the jurisdiction of that department, my department is to some degree tied up with the present immigration policy. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke this afternoon of indentured labour and referred to conditions in Britain in 1906 under the Liberal party. No one knows better than my hon. friend that you cannot compare this policy with the conditions that existed in South Africa at that. time.