February 11, 1947

?

An hon. MEMBER:

Not even your mother-in-law.

Topic:   IX, 1917
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

I thank the hon, member for giving emphasis to what I say. In contemplating the bringing of large numbers of these unfortunate people to our shores, we are contemplating just such a proposal. But is it not possible for us to enable them to set themselves up in their own land where they would be happy in their own natural environment, while we contributed to their support with goods and services from our surplus? I believe that would be possible. If I proposed to treat my neighbour as I have suggested, by helping him to build a home of his own on his own lot, supplying him with food, clothing and shelter in keeping with my resources, could anyone say that I was discriminating against him? Could anyone say, because I did not invite him into my own house, that I was discriminating against him? Surely discrimination means something different from what some hon. members appear to seek to convey!

Since the matter of the united nations charter has been mentioned two or three times by members, I should like to read into the record clause 3 of article I of that charter, which I am afraid some people are inclined to regard as obligating Canada to admit any number of people to her shores:

Immigration Act

To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion-

Now let me apply the little crude illustration that I gave a moment ago. Suppose I assisted my neighbour by helping him to establish himself, contributing to his support with food, clothing and shelter surplus to me, would that discriminate against him economically or socially or racially? Would I be neglecting to respect his human rights and fundamental freedoms? Certainly not! As a matter of fact, I would be adding to his dignity, his self-respect and his happiness, beyond any question. The social credit concept is illustrated and suggested by the little illustration I have given.

Some people have the idea that we Social Creditors do not favour international cooperation. Nothing is farther from the truth. But we do object to the types of technique that have been proposed as means whereby international cooperation is to be achieved. We maintain that they would be disastrous in their application. What does racial discrimination mean? We might spend a moment on that since it has been discussed. What does "without distinction as to race" and so on mean? I maintain, if I may submit this in all humility for hon. members to consider, that the whole charter of the united nations has been worded in a dangerously vague and general way, so that almost any expression in the charter is susceptible of several interpretations which can be made by' interested parties who may desire to accomplish their own private ends. I suggest, therefore, to hon. members that they be not too much impressed by' this argument that we are bound under the united nations charter. If we are bound under it, then I suggest that it is high time the government took measures to loosen our ties with it or to redefine our freedoms and privileges and redefine the terms and the meaning of the charter, as was well suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South.

There are too many complexities in the united nations charter, and that constitutes another reason why I believe we ought to consider, probably very soon, having the whole matter redefined. What does international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic character mean? Does it mean international trade? Must we buy and sell as much per capita from and to China as we do in the case of the United States? And if, by any chance, it is found that we do not buy as much from China as from the United States, are we discriminating against the

[Mr. Blackmore.l

Chinese and doing so by reason of race? W ould any hon. member answer that in the affirmative? Well, then, why should we be accused of racial discrimination if we do not accept from China as many of her population as we might be willing to accept from the United States or Great Britain? This is a matter which I think probably requires a little attention. Suppose clause 3 of article I, which I read a few moments ago, is a clause, by' reason of agreeing to which, Canada became obligated to accept Chinese immigrants as envisaged by this bill before the house. "What expression in that clause requires this? Is it the word "social"? May I read the clause once more so that members can give it special attention:

To achieve international cooperation in solving inter-national problems of an economic-*

That does not apply to immigration, does it?

-social

That does not apply to immigration, does it?

-cultural-

Does that apply to immigration?

-or humanitarian character,-

Does that apply to immigration? If so, why was it not specifically so stated?

and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights-

Does that require immigration?

[DOT]-and for fundamental freedoms-

Does that require immigration?

for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

I confess that I find it difficult to feel that any one of those statements binds Canada to accept Chinese immigration or immigration from any' other source whatsoever unless we choose to have those people in this country.

Topic:   IX, 1917
Permalink
IND
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

If I am not right, we must take steps to see that I am right, and we must take steps before it is too late; because many of these things have a way of congealing or hardening after a while, and then they grow more difficult to deal with.

What should we have to do to fulfil this commitment? Suppose this statement regarding the achieving of international cooperation in solving of international problems of a social nature should mean immigration; let us see where it would get us. Are we to admit as many Chinese in proportion to the Chinese population as we admit of French in proportion to France's population? Let us consider

Immigration Act

that for a moment.. If we are not going to discriminate against the Chinese at all, and if we accept from France 100,000 people- which I believe everyone in this house would be perfectly happy to do in any given year- then, apparently, from the interpretation which some hon. members are putting on- this whole situation, we should have to accept eight times as many from China as we accepted from France, because there are eight times as many people in China as there are in France. That would mean that we should have to bring in 800,000 Chinese in order to get

100.000 French, if we are to avoid discrimination. Is that not the only interpretation which could logically be placed upon it?

Topic:   IX, 1917
Permalink
IND
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Then, where does that put us? Not in a very plausible position, I should say.

Topic:   IX, 1917
Permalink
IND
SC
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Yes; or one Englishman for eight Chinamen, because there are 46 million or 47 million people in Britain and over 400 million people in China. The whole thing works out to an absurdity, does it not? When we begin to talk about discrimination in realistic terms, that is the sort of complexity we find ourselves involved in. Apply that rule to India with her 350 million people, or to Java with her 46 million people and look at the commitment with respect to immigration which Canada would have to take on in order to bring in 100.000 Frenchmen from France or 100.000 British from Britain.

Topic:   IX, 1917
Permalink
IND

John Lambert Gibson

Independent Liberal

Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni) :

What about

100.000 Scotsmen? What would they take?

Topic:   IX, 1917
Permalink
SC
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Without prolonging the discussion any further, Mr. Speaker, I think we might safely dismiss every consideration before us except that of obtaining for Canada additional population of the kind we desire in this country.

I think it would be well that I do not continue this discussion any further just now. I do not wish to burden hon. members of the house. I will just close by making a brief statement as to the attitude Social Creditors are taking on this bill; and let it be fully understood once more that Social Crediters are as eager as any members in this house to cooperate with nations. They realize that peace is indivisible in the world. They realize that we cannot have a safe world while there

are people in it who are hungry. They have contended this time and again in this house. The whole question with us is one as to the techniques to be employed in order to attain the objective desired. I have suggested the technique that Social Crediters would adopt and I will say no more about it.

Let me now state my attitude with respect to this bill. I believe that the minister would be well advised to withdraw this bill and redraft it so as to safeguard the Canadian people and their children of tomorrow. I would suggest that the minister issue, at as early a date as is convenient for him, a clear and explicit statement of the government's immigration policy so that we may be able to know what this bill means when considered against the background of the government's policy.

Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, I support the hon.

member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and I strongly object to any immigration into Canada except that which is absolutely necessary; because in a few short years we are going to see in this country a demand for every farm that we can provide for some of the most, if not the most, lojml citizens that Canada has ever known or will ever know, for the baby bonus being paid to our fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec will cause a flood of these most loyal citizens who will, I hope, inhabit Canada and thus preserve Canada as a great country.

Topic:   IX, 1917
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):

Mr. Speaker, with some of the profound observations which have been made by the last speaker I feel that I am not in a position to compete. Therefore, with the consent of the house I move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Wednesday, February 12, 1947

Topic:   IX, 1917
Permalink

February 11, 1947