February 11, 1947

PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. ADAMSON:

This would be a good time to say it is obvious there is considerable confusion about the whole matter of defence. Over the week-end a most important statement was made by General Crerar, and another one by General Marshall. We have this subject of defence, in all its aspects, directly before us today. In view of the changed circumstances in which Canada finds herself, I suggest to the minister, and through him to the government, that a defence committee of the house be established. We are no longer a colonial power. In force of arms we probably rank third among the democracies. The defence committee of the United States congress and that of the United Kingdom

Immigration Act

parliament at Westminster take up matters which are frequently not the subject of debate in those respective assemblies. If a committee of this house were set up it could have power to call people such as General Crerar or Doctor Solandt, and other experts and instead of defence matters becoming the subject of controversy, in the house, political and otherwise, they could be studied as scientific and vital matters, as indeed they are.

I would ask the government to consider my suggestion. Our status has changed. Despite our relatively small population, we are now an important nation. We may become a buffer state, and in a future war might find ourselves in the front line. Therefore in all seriousness I suggest that the government set up a defence committee of the house so that this whole matter of defence may be considered from that point of view.

In my opinion the bringing down of the estimates of the Department of National Defence in the last days of the session, so that they must be hurried through in hot weather, does not afford sufficient opportunity for discussion by parliament of these vital matters.

Topic:   MILITIA PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT TO CERTAIN GROUPS
Permalink

Title agreed to. Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


IMMIGRATION ACT

REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act. He said1: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill of only four sections, involving several amendments to the Immigration Act. While it is not the custom, I believe in this instance I might deal with the sections as they appear in the bill, because they are somewhat interlocked. The first section deals with a matter of departmental administration. There has been considerable difficulty in providing for the identification and transit of groups of people who may cross Canada. This is to give that protection so that they may be identified in transit. The second section of the bill repeals section 80 of the act, which will be inapplicable if this bill carries and the Chinese Immigration Act is repealed. Section 3 is to take the place of the present order in council dealing with dependents overseas of members of the armed forces. It makes the provisions of P.C. 858 applicable to these dependents. Already 63,000 dependents have been brought to Canada, and there are approximately 5,300 still overseas. The order in council was passed in order to give the right of admission to Canada of these dependents and to give them the same immigration status as the service men. The order in council will expire on March 31, and this section will enable arrangements to be made whereby these dependents may come to Canada. The provisions of the section are in exactly the same terms as the order in council. It is thought that the movement of these dependents will be rapidly completed. A committee has been appointed to look after the arrangements and1 see that these dependents are brought to Canada to take their places in our community life. The other and most important section of the bill deals with the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. Since the war ended there has been considerable agitation in the minds of many people in Canada, editorial writers and the like, and organizations of various kinds throughout the country who have made representations to the government for the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. They contend that the act is discriminatory, that it singles out a nation which has been a friendly ally in the war, that the provisions of our Immigration Act work a hardship on the Chinese who reside in Canada, and that certainly is not a matter that Canada can lightly overlook. Since the war, in the deliberations of the united nations, principles have been enunciated and the Canadian delegation have put themselves on record with regard' to matters such as are contained within the Chinese Immigration Act. On this whole question I find so many opinions expressed throughout the country that I feel we ought not to make hurried proposals in this regard. There are as many opinions on the subject as there are writers and commentators, but all do not seem to realize the responsibility involved. Our law is of a most complex nature, and the subject is so important that we must proceed surely and steadily and not allow ourselves to be hurried in dealing with the matter. There are so many factors involved that at the moment I simply make this statement to the country in general terms, that the whole matter of immigration is under review daily at all times, and we hope that as a result of these deliberations such amendments may be made to our policy that it will not only commend itself to the people of Canada but be consonant with the best interests of our whole economy and the destiny of this nation. Immigration Act



After all, it must be realized that the immigration we now take into Canada will have a great effect on the destiny of our country; therefore we must be sure that our ground is sound before we proceed. Many have expressed the view that the Chinese Immigration Act is detrimental to the interests of the Chinese in Canada, and that in view of our position in the united nations and the democratic way in which we live, we are not justified in maintaining it. Therefore it was felt that as a first step toward an ultimate policy of immigration we ought to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act. We have come to the conclusion that that act should now be repealed. The consequence of its repeal will be that Chinese, citizens of this country, who have resided here will be able to bring their wives and children to this country. Shortly that is what it means. W7hat the effect will be in numbers of those admitted cannot be definitely stated at the moment. The information I have is that there are Chinese born in Canada to the number of 6,694, and naturalized subjects to the number of 2,055, making a total of 8,749. The remainder, approximately 26,000 Chinese in this country, are not in that position, and many thousands of them are over forty years of age. They may have wives in China, but they are not citizens of this country. The effect of the legislation which the house is being asked to decide upon would be that Chinese who are not citizens of Canada would not have the rights conferred upon those who are Canadian citizens to bring to this country their wives and children under eighteen. There are several other questions which can more properly be raised when we are in committee dealing with the clauses of the bill. I know that many members of the house will wish to have further particulars, which I need not go into at the moment. We are taking this first step towards the removal of the discrimination against the Chinese. I do not say that it is the last step, because, as I have already said, it will be a matter of serious consideration for this parliament and the people of Canada to deal with the whole question of persons of the Asiatic race which will be acceptable not only to Canada but to the other countries concerned.


LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

May I ask what the minister means by "not citizens of Canada"?

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
LIB

James Allison Glen (Minister of Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. GLEN:

Chinese who were born in Canada are citizens, and those who were naturalized are citizens. All others are not.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

But they may become citizens of Canada?

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
LIB

James Allison Glen (Minister of Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. GLEN:

Oh, yes.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):

Mr. Speaker, this bill, No. 10, entitled "An Act to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act" deals, as the title indicates, with two separate matters. One is the entry of dependents of members of our forces. As I understand the minister, the bill merely replaces an order in council providing that these dependents may come into Canada. I do not think anyone in the house would quarrel with that provision-which, by the way, is in line with the type of legislation we were supposed to be considering during this two-week period. If hon. members will turn back to Hansard of February 4 they will find that at page 82 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said:

. .The government will introduce about fifteen bills which, if adopted, will replace by legislation a number of orders in council which it is considered should in the national interest be placed on a more permanent footing.

The provision in the bill dealing with dependents of men in the armed forces falls into that category, but it is going pretty far to drag into this bill also a matter which has no connection whatever with orders in council or with the war.

The part of the bill which deals with the question of Chinese immigration is not replacing any wartime order in council. It is repealing an act of twenty-three years' standing. I suggest to the minister that regardless of whether the provision is a proper one or not, that part of the bill should have been brought down, as a separate measure, later in the session when it could be discussed by itself without being involved with dependents of the armed forces. This is the type of sharp practice in legislating that should not be approved by the house. I suggest that the government withdraw the bill and bring in a measure replacing the order in council dealing with the dependents of members of the forces. Let it be considered, and then later in the session, when we have disposed of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and are dealing with the ordinary legislative programme, bring in a bill dealing with Chinese immigration. Let us not try to get it rushed through the house as is being done now.

In any event we insist that we should have a statement from the Prime Minister outlining government policy on future Chinese immigration. Today we have had an explanation from the minister which he gave in seven or eight minutes. There we have the government's explanation of this important measure.

Immigration Act

That is not good enough for hon. members or for the people of Canada. They are entitled to a detailed statement from the head of the government, the Prime Minister, not merely a perfunctory seven-minute informal statement from the minister. Hon. members are entitled to more than that before being asked to vote on this question.

So far as it deals with Chinese immigration, the bill, as I have said, repeals the Chinese Immigration Act which has been in effect in Canada for twenty-three years. That act limited immigration to merchants and students. There is a good deal of talk of its being an exclusion act; but in reading the debates which took place in 1923 I notice that the prime minister of that day, who is the Prime Minister today, was careful to point out that it was really not an exclusion act at all because it did let in certain classes. He slithered around the suggestion that it was an exclusion act. Some people are very good at slithering around these difficult questions.

What should concern us is what policy is to replace the act. As I have said, we want to know that now. In the United States they had a Chinese Exclusion Act for many decades. On December 17, 1943, they repealed their act and put Chinese immigration on a quota basis. In other words they had a definite policy to substitute for their exclusion act. I hold in my hand the records having to do with the passing of the new act, and I shall quote from the senate miscellaneous reports No. 3, 78th congress, first session, 1943. I refer to proceedings of November 16, 1943, report No. 535. There we find a report from the committee on immigration of the senate. It points out that the purpose of the bill is as follows:

The legislation proposed in this bill is for the purpose of repealing the Chinese exclusion laws, to p'aee Chinese persons on a small quota basis, and to make persons of the Chinese race eligible to become naturalized United States citizens.

Apparently they were not eligible for citizenship in the United States, but they have been eligible in Canada throughout.

The report contains a letter from Francis Biddle, Attorney General of the United States. From that letter I quote the following paragraph:

The Chinese exclusion laws were enacted during a period when immigration to this country was not restricted by any quota provisions, the quota limitation having been first introduced into the laws by the Immigration Act of 1924. The quota restrictions are a sufficient protection to this country against excessive immigration, generally, and against the possibility of an unreasonable number of immigrants from any one country. No useful purpose is being served by retaining the Chinese exclusion laws in effect since under the quota provisions the Chinese quota would be only 105 persons annually.

If Canada had a similar quota provision it would permit the immigration of about ten Chinese persons annually.

A letter from President Roosevelt is also found in this report; it reads in part as follows:

The Chinese quota would, therefore, be only about 100 immigrants a year. There can be no reasonable apprehension that any such number of immigrants will cause unemployment or provide competition in the search for jobs.

We find also this statement about the effect of the repeal of the exclusion act:

It should be stated at this point that no substantial gain accrues to the Chinese people, through the repeal of these laws from the standpoint of permitting Chinese to enter the country who are at present denied that privilege because other provisions of laws subsequently enacted effectively keep out persons of the Chinese race as well as persons of other races ineligible to citizenship. It doe.s, however, eliminate the undesirable laws specifically designating Chinese as a race to be excluded from admission to the United States.

There is certainly merit in making our laws such that they do not specifically name the Chinese. I agree with that. Subsequently, I think on August 9 of last year, the United States passed a bill making some provision for the wives of United States citizens to come in from China on a non-quota basis. Their policy is clear. The citizens of the United States as well as the citizens of China know exactly what the law is.

What is Canada's future policy to be? I am here today in an1 inquiring frame of mind, asking questions. What is our policy to be? Are we to have an open door policy? Are we to have a quota system for Chinese and all other immigrants? If so, on what basis? What are the numbers concerned? We are entitled to know. Is Chinese immigration to be governed by order in council 2115, which I understand is now the order in council governing the immigration of all Asiatic races except Chinese and Japanese?

I would refer hon. members to section 38 of the Immigration Act. I will not read the section, but in effect it gives the governor in council power by proclamation or order to prohibit the landing in Canada of certain classes of immigrants on various grounds, such as that they are not going to be easily assimilated, that there is unemployment in Canada, and so on; there are several other grounds on which such an order in council can be passed. In 1930 an order in council was passed dealing with Asiatic immigration. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that there are two such basic orders in- council-P.C. 2115, passed on September 16, 1930, which deals with immi-

Immigration Act

gration from Asia, and P.C. 695, as amended, including an amendment passed about a week ago, which deals with immigration from all other parts of the world.

This is the provision made by P.C. 2115: From and after August 16, 1930, and until otherwise ordered, the landing in Canada of any immigrant of any Asiatic race is hereby prohibited, except as hereinafter provided:

The immigration officer in charge may admit any immigrant who otherwise complies with the provisions of the Immigration Act, if it is shown to his satisfaction that such immigrant is-

And these are the points to be noted:

the wife or unmarried child under 18 years of age, of any Canadian citizen legally admitted to and resident in Canada, who is in a position to receive and care for his dependents.

Provided that this regulation shall not apply to the nationals of any country in regard to which there is in operation a law, a special treaty, or agreement, or convention regulating immigration.

Of course, the order in council does not yet apply to Chinese because there is this special law dealing with them, the Chinese Immigration Act, but when that act is repealed, Chinese immigration will automatically come under this order in council.

An order in council is not a very solid foundation for an immigration policy. Orders in council can be changed on short notice and without parliament having anything to say about it. This immigration policy should be in statute form. But if we are to carry on under order in council P.C. 2115, then surely the members of this house are entitled to have some definite idea of the numbers of women and children who may be allowed in.

The minister said today, "Oh, I don't know;

I have no idea how many there may be". He just threw up his hands without attempting to give the house the remotest idea.

There are some figures available from which one can make a guess. For example, at the time of the 1941 census there were 23,556 married male Chinese in Canada, and 1,177 married, female Chinese. That means a difference of over 22,000-22,000 more married Chinese males in the country than married Chinese females. The difference in British Columbia is over 12,000. There are more than 12,000 Chinese married males in British Columbia over and above the number of Chinese married females.

I do not know what these figures signify. They may mean that there are 20,000 Chinese wives in China who would qualify to come in under the order in council.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

How many naturalized

citizens are there among the married men?

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

I do not know. It may mean 10,000 or 12,000 wives could come to British Columbia under this order in council. Taking that with the children who would be eligible, the result may be that under the order in council we will double the total number of Chinese in Canada. The total number now is 34,627. I am simply putting an extreme case. I do not believe that anything like that number are involved, but we are entitled to know, we should get a far more detailed statement of the problem we are dealing with under this bill.

Another thing the minister should explain is whether under the order in council a single man will be able to go to China and get married and then bring back his wife-over and above the question about married men now in Canada. Another question is whether it will be permissible to bring in picture brides as the Japanese did for many years. Young women sent their pictures to Canada, were selected on the basis of those pictures and allowed to come in and be married here. These and many other details should be given to the house and to the country before we are asked to vote on this bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia, my home province, has to absorb most of the immigration from Asia. That has always been so, and I presume it will continue to be, because we happen to be facing on the Pacific ocean. The present distribution of Chinese in Canada shows 53-7 per cent living in British Columbia. The figure is 18,619. Then comes Ontario with 6,143, or less than a third of the number in British Columbia; Alberta with 3,122; Saskatchewan, 2,545; Quebec, 2,378; Manitoba, 1,248; and in the three maritime provinces a total of only 569.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

British Columbia has more than all the others.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

Yes; the percentage is 53-7. Your arithmetic is good. Then these figures should be compared with those of the United States. In 1940 the United States had a total Chinese population of 77,504-in other words slightly over twice as many as Canada, with a total population ten or twelve times as great as ours. In that country 56-7 per cent of the Chinese live in the three Pacific coast states. Washington, our neighbouring state, has 2,345 against British Columbia's 18,000, although Washington has a much larger population than British Columbia. Oregon has 2,086, and her population is also larger than that of British Columbia. California has 39,556, and her population is six or seven times greater than the population of British Columbia.

Immigration Act

The problem for us arose over sixty years ago. The first influx of Chinese into British Columbia was in the Cariboo gold rush back in the early sixties. But the first real rush came during the building of the Canadian Pacific railway early in the eighties; and from that time on the question has been of great concern to all the members from the province of British Columbia. At the time of the 1901 census there were 17,312 Chinese in Canada. Between 1901 and 1907 only a handful came in. Then from 1907 to 1910 there were 5,927; between 1910 and 1915, 25,740 came; between 1915 and 1918, the war years, only 1,250; from 1918 to 1919, in one year- as from March 31, 1918 to March 31, 1919 4,333 entered Canada; from 1919 to 1920, 544; from 1920 to 1924, 5,566. Of course the Chinese Immigration Act was passed in 1923, and for all practical purposes that ended the immigration.

I am not going to discuss at length the difficulties in connection with the immigration. There has been difficulty in assimilation. Also Chinese labourers coming into Canada have had a far lower standard of living than our own people, with the result that there has been great competition with our own people. Even today in British Columbia there is a minimum w7age for Chinese, and I think also for Japanese and East Indians. Mind you, although it used to be written right out in the regulations, now it is not put so plainly, but with regard to saw mill workers, ten per cent of the employees may be paid less than the minimum rate of 50 cents an hour, but not less than 40 cents an hour; in box manufacturing, twenty per cent may be paid at a lower rate; in household furniture manufacturing, fifteen per cent may be paid at a lower rate. As I say, there is no specific mention of any races, but as I understand it the purpose is to enable the payment of a lower rate to the Chinese, Japanese and East Indians.

Always underlying the public uneasiness and unrest has been the threat of a large influx. With that threat removed in 1923, the friendly feeling for the Chinese people steadily increased in Canada. The Chinese are scrupulously honest; they are loyal friends and are very well liked in my own province of British Columbia and, I think, in other parts of Canada as well. I am sure that every hon. member of this house has the greatest admiration for the way in which the republic of China stood up to the Japanese aggressor, took a pounding such as no other nation has taken in modern times, and came through successfully. The feeling has improved to such an extent that in British Columbia at the coming

session of the legislature, which opens today, it looks as if the vote will be given for the first time to the Chinese and the East Indians.

I suggest that it would be unwise to destroy this good relationship and opening the gates to an influx would probably do that.

I suggest this course to the government. I suggest that Canada negotiate a treaty with China-and negotiate across the table on a man-to-man basis, each side treating the other as a full equal1-restricting the Canadians who can settle in China to those whom the Chinese government want to settle there and letting Canada do the same thing with regard to the Chinese. For example, I think we could very well have many more Chinese students come to this country than we have had. There is no reason why many of them should not be studying in our Canadian universities. They would make a great contribution to our universities, and, I think, to our people. Possibly Canadians would benefit too by studying in Chinese universities. Let us treat this question on a friendly, man-to-man basis.

So much for the question of Chinese immigration. There is a broader issue, quite apart from Chinese immigration, which the minister brought up this afternoon, and I was surprised to hear him make the statement he did. It is another issue on which we are entitled to a statement from the Prime Minister. Have the united nations any jurisdiction over immigration into Canada, or have we the right to decide who is to come to our shores? That broad question was raised before the united nations trusteeship committee last fall when some of the countries took the position that Australia and New Zealand had no right to have exclusion laws. It has also been raised in Canada by some groups which are using it to further their own arguments and trying to bludgeon Canada with the threat that the united nations will do this or that if we do not let them run our business for us.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

It should have been considered last year.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

Right here in Canada today we have a responsible minister of the crown making the same statement. Their argument is based on chapter 1, article 1, paragraph 3, of the united nations charter, which reads thus:

The purposes of the united nations are:

3. 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 . . .

Immigration Act

Hon. members will notice that this deals with problems of an economic, social, cultural or human character; it does not extend to allowing other people into your country. There is a provision of the charter which I submit covers the very point; that is article 2, paragraph 7, and I suggest to the minister and the members of this house that Canada should make her stand on this paragraph, which reads:

Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the united nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under chapter VI'I.

My argument is supported also by paragraph 2 of article 1, which deals with the right of self determination of peoples. It says:

The purposes of the united nations are:

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people?, and to take _ other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.

Where does the Canadian government stand? Here is a question which is vital to the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people, a question they must face. Canada is one of the few immigrant-receiving nations. They are nearly all small nations, most of them in North America or South America, and Australia and New Zealand. I suggest that they must have the sole right to say who is to come to their shores. Just think what dictation by another nation might mean. If another nation could say that Canada or some other nation must allow certain people into her country that might lead to the breaking up of the united nations. It would be a fine way to lead to war. Suppose, for example, the United States said to us, "You have to let ten thousand or a hundred thousand of our people into your country every year. You have many vacant spaces; you have much territory; you must let our people in". Suppose Russia said the same thing, or China, or any other nation. Where do we stand in that case? This is a serious question to be determined by the Canadian people. Such a method might be used as a new way to undermine a potential victim. Suppose, for example, Russia or any other country set out to conquer Canada. Suppose that country could say to Canada, "Here, you must allow ten thousand communists into Canada each year". Where does ' Canada stand in a case like that? Canada must take her stand, and I am suggesting that Canada must never agree that immigration into this country is the concern of any other nation.

Then the bill brings up another issue quite apart from that of Chinese immigration; and it is an issue on which we are entitled to a statement by the Prime Minister. What is the policy of this government on Japanese immigration? On August 4, 1944, the Prime Minister made a statement which I am going to read to the house; it may be found at page 5915 of Hansard for that year.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
LIB

James Allison Glen (Minister of Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. GLEN:

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he is importing into this discussion something which is not before the house, the question of Japanese immigration There is no question of that here at all.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

The minister may not like it, but I suggest this has to do with the question of immigration, and I have a right to ask for a government statement. Here is what the Prime Minister said:

. . . the government is of the view that, having regard to the strong feeling that has been aroused against the Japanese during the war and to the extreme difficulty of assimilating Japanese persons in Canada, immigration of Japanese into this country should not be allowed after the war. It is realized, of course, that no declaration of this type can or should be attempted which would be binding indefinitely into the future. Nevertheless, as a guiding principle in the years after the war, it is felt that the migration of Japanese should not be permitted.

That was a clear-cut statement by the Prime Minister of this country and we expect it to be lived up to.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink
LIB

James Allison Glen (Minister of Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Mr. GLEN:

I suggested before, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is introducing into the discussion of this bill something which does not arise from it. The hon. gentleman is referring to the Japanese, who at the moment are still alien enemies. Any policy dealing with the Japanese certainly cannot be considered at the present time, and I suggest, therefore, that the hon. gentleman confine himself to the issue before us.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   REPEAL OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION ACT-BONDING OF PERSONS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA
Permalink

February 11, 1947