March 14, 1910

LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIYEE.

I cannot speak definitely upon the administration of the immigration hall in Winnipeg. I am glad to know that some of the immigrants who come are well treated, and I will credit that up to the department. As to the treatment accorded to British immigrants and Cana-Mr. OLIVER.

dian immigrants, as far as Canadian" immigrants are concerned, my belief is that very few of them would care to use the immigrant shed in Winnipeg or anywhere else.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

William Henry Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. H. SHARPE.

In some cases they do.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

So far as British immigrants are concerned, I have been at some of the immigrant sheds in the northwest, and I have found British immigrants in them whenever I have gone, and my impression is that the advantage is given every time to the British immigrant.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

William Henry Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. H. SHARPE.

Not in Winnipeg.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

I think in Winnipeg, and I am sure in other places. In regard to the oath, my hon. friend is complaining of something that is a part of the general law of Canada. I am not undertaking to amend the general law of Canada in this Bill. It is not a matter which pertains to immigration; it is a matter which would be dealt with by an amendment to the general law, and my hon. friend would do well to bring his point to the attention of the Minister of Justice, in whose department the general law rests.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Glenlyon Campbell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAMPBELL.

Does the Bill not govern all classes of immigrants? It it does there could be nothing simpler than to put a clause in this Bill saying that no man shall be allowed to come in and take part in Canadian citizenship unless he is prepared to take the oath of allegiance, and in case of necessity to perform service for the flag that protects him, just as the rest of us do.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

So far as that is concerned, subsection (c) of section 38 gives ample authority to meet that or any other case that may arise. But unless and until it is the mind of the people of Canada, as expressed in their statutes, that every _ man who . enjoys the benefits of citizenship in Canada should be required to fight for Canada when the occasion arises, I would feel rather doubtful about bringing it forward in an immigration Bill, which is of a subordinate character, undertaking as it were to dictate a policy in regard to a matter of general and vital interest to the country.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Henry Bradbury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADBURY.

I think that clause 38 gives the government all the powers that the government ought to have. I think that a man who comes in to take up land should be required to take the oath of allegiance, but I do not think that should be exacted from every man who comes to this country. I think it ought to be left entirely in the hands of the man himself. If you ero to the United States or any other country in the world you can live there for fifty years and you do not need

to take the oath of allegiance unless you want to, and I do not think it would be wise to put such a provision on our statute-books.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
?

Robert Bickerdike

Mr. BICKERDIKE.

I quite agree with my hon. friend that every man who gets land in this country should take the oath of allegiance; but I would not go so far as to compel every man to fight for the country. I do not think that those who abstain for conscience sake should be compelled to fight. I think the minister would do well to inquire into the complaint made in regard to the different treatment of immigrants at Winnipeg. There are one or two points in the Bill that I would like to discuss. I think it is a very good Bill on the whole; but I think the inspection should be done on the other side instead of on this side.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Uriah Wilson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. URIAH WILSON.

On both sides.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
?

Robert Bickerdike

Mr. BICKERDIKE.

On both sides if necessary. If gentlemen living in the west could see the heart-rending scenes that we in the east sometimes witness, when families are broken up on debarkation, they would feel as we do.

By section 2 clause (j) the cattle men are perhaps a little aggrieved. I would desire to insert the words: ' Not including a cattle man.' It now includes cattle men as immigrants. Most of them are Canadians and I do fcot think they should be brought under that section.

In clause 3 some of our friends ask that the words ' mentally ' be added after the word ' otherwise.'

In clause 23 we claim passengers are deprived o'f the right of appealing to the courts until they are passed by the Canadian officials, unless they are Canadians. We claim there should be always some place to appeal to, that the judgment of the doctors should not be final. That clause might be amended especially in the case of British subjects of the Anglo-Saxon race. This depriving them of the right to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus in a court is all wrong. In Great Britain a Canadian has the right to apply for a writ. I hope the minister will see his way clear to have the inspection made on the other side. It is pitiful to see the breaking up of a family. It may be that the youngest child is discovered to have trachoma, and the whole family is broken up and sent back. If the inspection were made in England or on the other side it would save all these heart rending scenes that we in the east are compelled to witness.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

My hon. friend has presented the views held by the steamship companies. When the Bill was first introduced it was first made public. We were then called upon by some of the steamship 176 '

companies who made certain suggestions asking us to meet their views in certain particulars. I have certain amendments which I propose to offer at a later stage to meet some of the views of the shipping companies. There were some views that we did not feel able to meet, and these are the views my hon. friend has brought to the attention of the House.

While inspection at the other side would theoretically be the best as a matter of practice, so far we have found it impossible. First of all the government of Canada has no jurisdiction outside the boundaries of Canada, and an inspector stationed at the port of any other country would have no authority bv which his inspection could be enforced. He would be standing on unsafe ground, and would not be in a position to do credit to the authority of the government to which he was responsible. Besides that, in a large majority of cases the immigrant family have left their homes far away from any port at which our inspector could be stationed. If the immigrant comes from Northern Europe, Scandinavia, for instance, he travels across the German ocean to a British port, then across England to an Atlantic port at which port we might station our inspector. But the family would already have been broken up, and if they are met by a Canadian inspector at a British port they are no better off than they would be at a Canadian port. The steamship company would be better off because they would save the transport to and from Canada, but the immigrant is no better off.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

The Americans have their officers in Montreal and inspect immigrants before going to the United States. Is that by private arrangement?

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

Yes.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

Why could not the same arrangement be made in Great Britain?

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

That would be no advantage to the immigrant.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Uriah Wilson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. U. WILSON.

Would he not save his fare across the Atlantic?

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

Yes. The inspection by United States officers at Montreal or Quebec is quite different from inspecting at the other side of the Atlantic. The United States do not inspect on the other side of the Atlantic. Their inspection at Montreal, or Quebec is by arrangement with our people for the advantage of the steamship companies, running to Canadian ports so that they shall not be at any disadvantage in the transaction of United States business. It is an arrangement of amity between the officials of the two countries in order to facilitate the business of Canadian

steamships, and it does no injury to Canadian interests. It has no bearing on the question of inspection previous to the immigrants embarking on the other side of the Atlantic.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

George Henry Bradbury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADBURY.

Does it not seem to the hon. minister that if the government would put the onus on the shipping companies by compelling them to do the inspection and fining them whenever they bring in any undesirables, that would have a very strong preventative effect. I believe there is a law in the United States of that kind. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) mentioned that fact to-day.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER.

That is exactly our policy. While we have not imposed an actual fine upon the steamship companies, our view is that if they know that their undesirables are subjected to a strict inspection at our ports, and that the company will be put to Jhe double expense of taking them back again, they will take care not to bring out any. If that be not a sufficient deterrent, we will require to put on a fine. But what is absolutely wanted is a strict enforcement of the inspection law at the Canadian ports. By that means the responsibility is placed on the steamship companies, and these companies have been very much more careful during the past year or two than in previous years just because of that policy.

Topic:   SUPPLY-INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink

March 14, 1910