At the moment we are admitting only merchants and students. Labourers will not be admitted. The bill proposes the abolition of the head tax. Hut that does not mean very .much as no labourers will be coming in. Students come in simply for educational purposes.
Of course, I do not doubt the minister's statement at all, but I understand that every boat reaching Yancouver from China carries quite a large number of Chinese children. This is another way in which the Chinese evade the regulations. We all know that the greater proportion of Chinese who seek admission claim to be merchants, and I think the minister will have a great deal of difficulty in defining a merchant in his bill, because the wily Chinese always finds a way to get around any restrictive regulations. The minister should be very careful in framing his definition. It will be a mistake if under his proposed bill merchants are allowed to enter to carry on business here permanently. Chinese merchants might be given permits to come in and carry on business temporarily, but we shall be faced with a very grave danger if we allow them to remain here permanently. ,1 would suggest to the minister that Chinese merchants who desire to live here permanently should be excluded, for if you allow a Chinaman to enter as a merchant you at once lose control over him and he can engage in any occupation that appeals to him. I think also the minister should insert a provision in his bill to deport students who remain in the country after they have finished their university courses. As the law now stands it appears that once a Chinese is admitted as a student he can engage in any occupation he chooses to take up and it is impossible to deport him. A Chinaman is supposed to have several wives, and we can readily believe this when we see so many Chinese children sent to this country to join their supposed parents here. I should like to hear from the minister what investigation is made in reference to such children and whether the department is able to ascertain beyond question that the large number ' who are now entering Canada are really the children of Chinese already resident here.
I think perhaps my hon. friend knows more about the difficulties of controlling Chinese immigration than I do. I had a very bright Chinese boy in my office the other night, in fact as bright a Chinese lad as I have ever seen. He is here on permit, and his case has been under investigation for four weeks. A Chinaman here swears that he is the boy's father; and the boy swears that he is the son of the Chinaman.
Well, the boy is under twelve years of age, so perhaps it is not proper to say that he swears to the fact. But he alleges that he is the son of a Chinaman in Toronto. A number of Chi-
nese people in Toronto say they were in China at the date of the birth of this boy, and that he is really the son of the Chinaman referred to. We do not think he is. There is certain contradictory evidence which would indicate that perhaps this is a case where the complaint of my hon. friend is justified. I merely mention this incident to show the difficulties we are confronted with. Taking it by and large my hon. friend is right as to the large number of Chinese children being sent to this country. Once it became known that the bill I have referred to would be introduced a lot of Chinese nationals resident in Canada attempted to bring in their children from China before the bill became law, and frankly we are suspicious that many of these children are not really the offspring of the men who are endeavouring -to get them into this country.