June 26, 1954

PRIVILEGE

MR. VINCENT REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN "FINANCIAL TIMES"

?

Mr, Auguste Vincent (Longueuil):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have in my hand a very amusing article signed by Tempus which appeared in the Financial Times of June 25 in which reference was made to the member for the constituency of Longueuil. I have Hansard at hand to prove that I have addressed the house on nine different occasions during this session, my first in parliament. I am most amused to think that these speeches and remarks, according to Tempus, might have been delivered directly from my bathtub in St. Lambert, Quebec. Frankly, Mandrake the magician could not have done better. As for Tempus, who wishes to have a photograph of me, I have tried to meet him face to face for the past three days but have not been able to. I have not been able to see him. He did not even call me. It is proper to say that "Tempus fugit". Therefore I wish to reassure him that as soon as I get back to Montreal I will send him a photograph with my best regards.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. VINCENT REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN "FINANCIAL TIMES"
Permalink

QUESTIONS

R.C.A.F.-CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT ROUTES

PC

Mr. Fulton:

Progressive Conservative

1. Prior to April 8, 1954, were any arrangements or orders in effect for the transmission to Royal Canadian Air Force stations from which aircraft operate, situate on or near civilian aircraft routes, of the flight schedules of such civilian aircraft?

2. If so, what were the arrangements?

3. Did orders then exist requiring the communication of such information, or the relevant parts thereof, as received by such stations, to all personnel having responsibility for the operation of or actually operating, aircraft from such Royal Canadian Air Force stations and covering the course of action to be followed by such aircraft under the circumstances?

4. If so, what were the arrangements or orders?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   R.C.A.F.-CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT ROUTES
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Blanchette:

1 and 2. Aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force are subject to the same flying regulations as are other aircraft. When flying under weather conditions requiring instrument flying, special rules apply and all

aircraft, whether civil or military, are controlled by Department of Transport air traffic control centres. Under I.F.R. conditions, in addition to being separated, R.C.A.F. and other airfields are kept fully informed of the whereabouts of other aircraft in the vicinity. Under weather conditions, when visible flying rules apply, all aircraft provide for their own separation by conforming with the normal rules of the air.

3 and 4. When operating under instrument flight rules in or near air space controlled by Department of Transport air traffic centre, R.C.A.F., like civil aircraft, must obtain clearance from air traffic control and consequently, both R.C.A.F. and civilian personnel having responsibility for the operation of aircraft, receive communication of the information referred to. Under visual flight conditions, it is the responsibility of pilots to maintain the proper separation of aircraft.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   R.C.A.F.-CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT ROUTES
Permalink

CAMP GAGETOWN, N.B.

SC

Mr. Hansell:

Social Credit

1. Has the government purchased, leased or taken over land known as Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick for defence purposes?

2. If so, what was the purchase price or terms of the lease?

3. Has the government sold or leased the pulp-wood rights on this land to any persons or company?

4. If so, to whom and on what terms?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CAMP GAGETOWN, N.B.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. Blanchette: (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

1. Yes.

2. The total purchase price is not yet known as negotiations with former owners are not yet complete.

3. No.

4. Not applicable.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CAMP GAGETOWN, N.B.
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


56. Departmental administration, $340,230.


PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

Mr. Chairman, last night the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration gave us a brief review of the activities of his department, outlining the work done by the three main branches. In my remarks this morning I shall confine myself pretty well to the immigration branch. First of all, however, I wish to express regret that this

6788 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration department seems to be one which is always left until the last minute when intelligent discussion and adequate review are entirely impossible.

The minister has been pressed on a number of occasions this year to bring on his estimates somewhat in advance of the last day. He has indicated from time to time that he feels his department has been adequately discussed on previous occasions. The fact is that we have not had an adequate or full discussion of this department since 1950, and that for the three years since then until the present time the department has in fact been discussed for approximately only three days and one hour. I looked up the record. In 1951 this department was discussed for one day, and that actually was not a full day, the discussion only occupying 22 pages of Hansard which, according to my calculations, would be somewhere between two and three hours. That was on June 28. The session ended that year on June 30.

In 1952 again the department was discussed on only one day, the main estimates occupying again only 22 pages of Hansard or, being generous, a discussion of perhaps three hours. That was on July 4, the day of prorogation. In 1953, last year, it was discussed on three occasions. The first was the end of the evening on April 23 when the , discussion occupied 74 pages of Hansard. The department was called on the next day, April 24, when the full day was devoted to it. However, at that time there were morning sittings and many committees sitting, and in fact one member complained that he had not been able to be here although he had some things he wanted to say. It was not called again until May 14 when it was discussed for approximately one minute, just long enough to carry one item.

These figures show, as I say, that since 1950 we have been able to discuss this department only on two days for about 3 hours each, one other full day, and one hour on another day. And again in 1954 we find ourselves in the position where this department is left until the very close of the session when we are up against a deadline, and because of the atmosphere in which we are now working it is just not sensible to suggest that we can have a proper discussion of the affairs of this very important branch of government.

Looking through the records of past discussions to find out what was said, I find that there is a reason which occurs to mind immediately why the minister should leave his department always until this stage of the session. It has not been adequately discussed since 1950 for the reason that in 1950,

when there was time to have an adequate discussion, the department was very severely criticized. It was severely criticized by a number of members on the government side of the house, who had some quite severe things to say about the policy or lack of policy being followed in the administration, particularly of the immigration branch of the department. I can well understand why the minister, therefore, is anxious to avoid discussion of his estimates so far as possible and has been successful in doing so.

I notice that in the debate of 1950 the hon. member for Rosedale made a fairly extensive review of the department. He made a statement with which, as a matter of fact, I cannot agree, when he said that in our immigration policy preference is given to immigrants of English, Irish, Scottish, French and American extraction. In the course of the same debate the hon. member for Spadina spoke at some length and his remarks will be found at pages 3584 and following of Hansard for 1950. He criticized the policy of the government as being "not a policy at all". He went on to say:

My purpose in speaking tonight is to try to build a fire under the minister and the department so that he may get on with his job.

I regret, Mr. Chairman, that the fire lighted by the hon. member for Spadina, if in fact it was lighted, appears to have burned out some years ago, so what we are doing now is raking over some rather dead ashes.

The hon. member for Spadina at page 3586 of Hansard also spoke in a most earnest manner urging the government to foster immigration from the United Kingdom. I regret to say that it is my view, according to the figures which have been placed on Hansard each year in the course of this review, that that has not been done to the extent it should have been.

What happened after these efforts in 1950? In 1951 we had a good year in immigration. There were some 190,000 immigrants admitted to Canada. The totals admitted during the next three years declined substantially from that level, so that not only have we a decline in the numbers being admitted but it is my view that the policy laid out by the government in 1947 by the then prime minister, and since that time subscribed to and reiterated by the present minister, is not being fulfilled. I have reference particularly to the situation regarding the maintenance of the ethnic balance of this country. If one looks at the figures put on the record again by the minister last night, and I have them in detail before me in a release from the statistical unit of the department, it will be seen that when you have 47,077 from the

United Kingdom plus 9,000 from the United States, making a total of 56,000 of that category admitted in the year, and in the same year you have 68,675 north Europeans, including 35,015 Germans and you have 43,737 others, including 24,219 from Italy, it is not possible to agree with the minister when he says the policy of preserving the ethnic balance within the country is being followed.

From time to time we on this side of the house have made it perfectly clear we do not ask for any special preference being given to any one country as a source of origin of immigration or that we should concentrate exclusively on bringing in immigrants from that country. 1 want to reiterate that position here this morning. We subscribed to the view that Canada should take immigrants who are capable of being absorbed into both our economic and cultural background from any country where suitable immigrants offer. But we do say that should be tempered, if you like, to fit in with this policy of maintaining the ethnic balance and, not distorting the cultural or economic situation in Canada. The figures which I have placed upon the record as to the experience in that regard indicate clearly that principle is not being observed.

We have also, from time to time, criticized the government for apparent inability to work out an intelligent and vigorous application of the assisted passage loan scheme as applied to the United Kingdom, so that we may encourage more immigration from there. I have been given information as to the countries in which that scheme was applied, and the number of immigrants brought forward under that scheme since February, 1951, up to December 31, 1952, which I was given to understand was the last day for which figures were available.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Harris:

I made a return in the house which brought it down to some time this year.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

I confess, then, that I have overlooked that. If the figures up to date present a different picture from the one I have drawn as a result of the figures I have, then I hope the minister will be quick to point it out. Up to that time, out of a total of 78,403 admitted, there were 4,361 from the United Kingdom; 22,224 from Germany and Austria, and a very small number, something in the neighbourhood of 1,700 or 1,800 from other European countries. The proportions between those countries from which immigrants have come under this scheme worked out at approximately 15-4 per cent from the United Kingdom, 78-2 per cent from

26, 1954 6789

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Germany and Austria and 6-3 per cent from elsewhere. Once again the figures show that with respect to preserving the ethnic balance of this country, the assisted passage loan scheme is not being equitably applied to the different countries of Europe, in that the United Kingdom has a disproportionately low number of immigrants coming out under that scheme.

Now, there are other matters which are causing concern in connection with the immigration policy of the government. One of these is the picture with respect to the fact that, of the large number of immigrants coming from Italy, practically none came from the north. I draw the attention of the committee to a series of articles appearing recently in the Vancouver Sun and written by Stanley Burke. He pointed out that last year Canada had taken more immigrants from Italy than any other country had taken. He obtained figures from the Italian government which showed that 24,000 went to Canada, and only 400 returned. Out of

10,000 who went to the United States, 2,400 returned. Immigrants to the Argentine totalled 13,000, and almost that many made the "disillusioned" trip home.

Now, sir, I do not mean to say that we should not take immigrants from that country. They have made good citizens. What is pointed out is that the great bulk of those who have been coming so far appear to have been from southern Italy. What is suggested, and I should like to hear the minister's comments on the matter, is that we should, in so far as our industrialization is increasing, give more attention to immigrants from northern Italy. Those who come from southern Italy at the moment tend to be a rural people but they do not fit in well with the present Canadian farm picture. While they are farmers themselves, they are accustomed to living in villages, in a very closely integrated communal life, and they find life on Canadian farms somewhat lonesome so they tend to gravitate immediately back to the city. Well, when they get to the city they are not at all qualified or trained as industrial workers, and so they find themselves completely out of place. The suggestion has been made that in our policy of soliciting immigrants from Italy we should pay more attention than we do to those in northern Italy. Experience has shown that the latter make excellent Canadian citizens, with background of industrial and technical training. These people would be much easier to fit into the Canadian scene than those drawn exclusively from southern Italy.

6790 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration

What I have said is by way of a general survey of the immigration picture as I see it today. I should like now to turn for a moment to some particular criticisms of the department, and to say I find that there are a number of procedures being followed today which impose hardships and unfairness in many cases.

I have in mind the situation of the Chinese who are attempting to bring over their children. I know the minister has received a brief on this matter from the Chinese benevolent association, dated April 1954. I shall not go into the details in this connection, but I think it is important to point out that the department still appears to attach undue and rigid importance to the results of X-ray examinations. We have had it out with the minister before, where Chinese here in Canada want their children to be brought in. The department in Hong Kong has the children examined and X-ray photographs are taken. If the department feels that the X-ray photographs indicate a bone structure of lesser or greater maturity than might be expected in the child for whom application is made, they say that according to the X-ray picture they cannot accept this child as the one applied for.

The department adheres rigidly to the decision, notwithstanding the fact that the father may have produced testimony from relations here and back in China, as well as his own sworn affidavit, establishing on the basis of evidence from those who know the facts that this child is his own.

According to my information, the United States has rejected this X-ray procedure. While they may not have rejected it completely, they laid down the principle in the forties that where there was positive evidence, not otherwise contested, that the child was in fact the child applied for, then it was not a proper course to rely upon X-ray evidence discrediting identity. A number of cases in the United States established that, and the principle they follow is that unless there is direct evidence to contradict the evidence of the applicant, then the evidence of the applicant prevails. However, that principle is not being followed in Canada, and there are a number of cases of unfairness resulting in respect of these applicants for admission from China. We are dealing here, not with Chinese applying to come to Canada, but with people who morally and legally are in fact Canadian citizens, because they are the children of Canadian citizens. So I cannot understand why the department adheres so rigidly to this and other administrative practices which in fact make discrimination between Canadian citizens.

Those principles are not followed in the case of applications from other Canadian citizens but only, so far as I can make out, in the case of applications from Chinese. And I would suggest that in the light of certain recent court decisions, particularly that of Leong Ba Chi, if I have the name right, the department would be well advised' to review its administrative practice in this field, and not only to avoid having its own administrative decisions reversed by the courts but also to avoid putting these applicants to such great expense.

In the instance to which I have referred, where the question arose as to whether the child was in fact the child of the applicant- and it was not based upon X-rays, but rather on a question of law-it had to be taken to the Supreme Court'of Canada, and one can imagine the expense to the applicant and the incidental cost as well as the heartbreak in the meantime until this barrier of administrative obstinacy was broken down, and the courts saw to it that justice was done.

Another series of incidents recently have given rise to a feeling of concern in connection with deportation orders made under circumstances which seemed to be unfair to those persons ordered for deportation. I am going to refer to only one of these cases, to which reference is made in the Ottawa Journal of April 24. This is the case of Mrs. Shirley Brent.

The article is headed "Justice Raps Deport Order-Even He Can't Understand It." The article is dated at Toronto, and is a Canadian Press report. It states:

Mr. Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Ontario criticized the Canadian immigration department Friday and said it should have disclosed any information it had against Mrs. Shirley Brent, 23, of Buffalo, N.Y.

He deferred judgment in the matter. The article goes on:

Testimony was the woman entered Canada as a visitor January 1 as Shirley Taylor and was married to Barry Brent, of Toronto, March 9. On January 28 she appeared before an immigration board and was told she "didn't meet requirements".

John D. Pickup, of Toronto, representing the immigration department, said no reasons had to be given under the statutes.

"Fine state of affairs in this country where there is supposed to be justice," said Mr. Justice Wilson.

Then the report goes on to summarize the argument of Mr. Pickup as to the reasons why the department did not disclose the details behind the order. It then continues:

Said Mr. Justice Wilson: "That is perfectly plain to the immigration people, but I must confess 1 would like you to explain it to me."

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
?

Follin Horace Pickel

Mr. Pickup:

"It could be that she might become a public charge, or that she lacked education, or because of political affiliations.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
LIB

Cairine Reay Wilson

Liberal

Mr. Justice Wilson:

"But surely, in fairness, the department should indicate what her shortcomings are; that's an illustration of how people coming to this country don't get fair treatment."

That is a fact which is causing concern. On a number of occasions I have been in conversation with people acting for prospective immigrants, although I do not think I have been in actual conversation with anyone acting for a prospective deportee. But where they are acting for a prospective immigrant they may get a rejection letter from the department saying, "We have to advise you that your application for the admission of this person cannot be granted." Then they have the greatest difficulty in finding out from the department the reasons why the application cannot be granted. They ask for a review. The reason they ask for the review is that they hope that in the course of the review some reason will be elicited, and the case against the application made clear to them, so that they will know what case they have to meet and whether in fact the reasons given by the department are reasons which in their opinion are valid, under the present immigration law, or whether they consider the department is misapplying or misinterpreting the present regulations.

But again they may receive a letter to the effect-"We regret to inform you that, after review, it is not possible to grant the application." Then the question will be asked: Where do we go from there? How do we go about discussing the merits of the case with the department, if we cannot be told on what grounds the department rejects the application?

I can see that there is one branch of cases- and I submit one only-where there is justification for not giving all the reasons, and that is where an applicant is rejected on grounds of security. That would be a case where, upon investigation, it has been disclosed that there is some background indicating that, for reasons of loyalty, such person would not be a desirable immigrant. I can understand that the department certainly should not disclose the details, because of the principle which is generally accepted that to disclose the details, where the information came from, when it was received, and so on, would enable those hostile powers, powers which are not friendly to Canada, to get details of our security system. I submit, however, that in cases where it is relied upon as the reason against the admission, still that fact should be stated.

I agree there is justification in that one type of case for the department not to go into the details, but I cannot see any justification in any other instance for the department not

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to give detailed reasons why it refuses admission, so that the applicant and his representatives will know what case they have to meet and can decide whether to press it further and whether, as I say, they agree the department is correctly interpreting the immigration laws, or whether in their view they are not, so that the matter could be taken further. At the present time they are at a loss to know what to do when they get this polite but improperly blank refusal to grant the application.

In this connection I note the number of cases where, in respect to the application for the admission of children of Chinese who are Canadian citizens, as well as in other cases, this feeling is becoming widespread. The representatives of the applicants do not know where or how to deal with it. I say we are entitled to hear from the minister this morning a review of details of the administrative practices within the department by which they deal with these applications. I urge that in future in all cases coming up for disposal the department should indicate to the applicant or his representative the reasons for its rejection of the application.

There is one interesting set of figures that I want to place upon the record in closing this survey of immigration, Mr. Chairman. The minister told us last night that, according to the review of Canada's absorptive capacity made this year, the government feels that approximately the same number as last year could safely be admitted to Canada. He did tell us, however, that a review of economic conditions in Canada indicated, if I understood him correctly, that prospective immigrants overseas should be given a stark and stern picture of the employment opportunities in Canada so that they would not arrive here and be disappointed on finding that the opportunities are not those which they have expected. If I heard him correctly, he went on to say that as a result of what I might call the stern outline which is to be given to these applicants, there may be a slightly reduced number coming this year in comparison with the number who came last year.

That is a sound policy, and perhaps it is based on past experience. I know cases have been drawn to the attention of hon. members of immigrants complaining that they were given a rosy picture. They came out and found that conditions were different and they felt that they were unfairly treated. That is most undesirable. We want in Canada people who are able to face hardships and surmount them. That has been our tradition; it would be unwise and unfair to encourage people to come

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration here under the impression that there are opportunities which may not be realized when they get here. This emphasizes the need for care, and I am glad that the department is going to follow that policy.

The other day I drew the minister's attention to the case of an immigrant from Germany who, apparently because of misapprehension on the part of the immigration officers, had been given to understand that he could obtain employment as an aircraft engineer. That was his employment in Germany. When he arrived here he found that, by the terms of a regulation made in Canada, he could not be licensed unless he was a Canadian citizen or came from a country where there were reciprocal arrangements with Canada in that regard, and it so happened that Germany is not such a country. I admit this is rather a technical matter, and it is perhaps asking the immigration officer to be superhuman to know all the regulations in that field. I expect the information was given in good faith over in Germany, but I cite it as an example of the care which is necessary so as not to mislead prospective immigrants.

In the picture presented by the minister's review his statement that there might be a somewhat smaller number coming to Canada as compared with last year is interesting. I hold in my hand a survey made by the Canadian Citizenship Council appearing in their publication "Citizenship Items" of February, 1954. I want to place this picture before the committee because I think it would be well for the department and the government to review their impression of the absorptive capacity of Canada. I will read the article in extenso because it is put in a clear and impressive form. It is headed: "How fast are we growing?" Before I get into the article I should say that very frequently the government, particularly, and others, say that we are now taking in all that we can practically absorb into Canada this year, and that Canada's immigration policy is aggressive and contributing substantially to the growth of the nation. The article is as follows:

Some have said "figures don't lie": others that "you can do anything with figures".

We have assembled here, obtained from authoritative sources, figures relating to our population growth during the decade ending June 30, 1951. In that time our population increased from 11,507,000 to 14,009,000 (some 2,502,000, including 349,000 when Newfoundland became the tenth province).

The greatest factor was that of natural increase. Births exceeded deaths by nearly two million.

The net migration figures-that is, immigration less emigration-are rather interesting. During the decade, some 548,000 newcomers came to Canada, while some 388,000 persons departed to take up residence elsewhere, leaving a net gain by migration of only 160,000, or an average of about 16,000

per year. As at least 6,000 of these were dependents, net migration in the decade did not add to the labour force of the country much over -2 per cent each year.

However, this decade included in its first half war years, when immigration was relatively light compared with more recent years. But if we look at the figures for the period of June 30, 1945 to June 30, 1951, we find that immigration totalled 464,000, emigration 293,000, leaving a net of 171,000, or an approximate average of 34,200 per year. This would mean an approximate addition to the labour force of less than 20,000 per year.

I have added the words "per year" because there appears to be a slight omission in the actual text. I continue:

From time to time we have heard, and read, that Canada's absorptive capacity, as far as immigration is concerned, is about 2 per cent a year. Net migration for the decade resulted in an average yearly increase of only .13 per cent, and for the second half, only -28 per cent.

When we first glanced at these figures, we were somehow reminded of Lewis Carroll. The Queen is speaking. "A slow sort of country. Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you must get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that."

The situation, of course, is not quite like that. However the figures do suggest that for the decade period, in order to replenish the loss through emigration, we had to average about 40,000 newcomers per year, and during the second half of the decade, about 60,000. For during the decade, for every 55 immigrants, we lost through emigration 39 persons.

On the basis of that conclusion, which appears to be accurate and to be substantiated by the figures, one can see, Mr. Chairman, that if in order to replenish losses through emigration we had to take in about

60,000 immigrants, then in a year when we take in 168,000 immigrants we are adding to the net population only slightly over 100,000 persons a year by immigration.

Now, in a population of approximately 14,-

500,000 and in a country with the tremendous growth potential of Canada, I think those figures are interesting and they cast an important light on this question of whether we are approaching our absorptive capacity, and I submit that they indicate that the department should take a good new look at this problem from the point of view of ascertaining whether they are in fact pursuing an aggressive and vigorous policy of immigration, as the minister has frequently claimed we are.

I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of May 5 headed, "Harris Defends Government Stand on Quebec Tax". I do not know how that crept in but apparently the minister had something to say on that subject as well. But this clipping contains these extracts:

Canada will have a population of about 23 million In 1974, Citizenship Minister Harris predicted last night.

Mr. Harris, in charge of citizenship and immigration, said in an address over the political free time series of the C.B.C.:

"If I may . . . peer into the future, it would be to say that in 20 years we shall have about 23 million people instead of 15 million people; that we shall be consuming then nearly all the beef, pork and similar farm products that we produce and pay our farmers a good price for them; that our workmen will have a higher . . . standard of living, and that our exports will not be subject to the fluctuations of one or two specialized markets."

All of which, Mr. Chairman, is a very pleasant and gratifying picture and I hope it is fulfilled. But I would submit that the rate of growth as forecast by the minister is perhaps unduly pessimistic, although perhaps it is realistic in the light of the government's snail-pace immigration policy. A growth in population from 15 million to 23 million would mean an approximate growth of 8 million people, and for that to be realized over 20 years would work out, as I calculate it, to about 400,000 people a year. Therefore, on the basis of that figure of

400,000 people, since the present annual net gain by immigration would appear to be approximately 100,000, that leaves the natural increase in the present population to account for the remainder of approximately 300,000 per year. The government has no control over the birth rate; and taking the over-all picture for the rate of growth, at least by immigration, that appears to me to be a very cautious and unduly slow rate of growth to be predicted for this country, particularly in the light of predictions that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. That might have to be modified as a result of government inaction to a prediction that the second half of the twentieth century belongs to Canada, and certainly if this forecast by the minister is to be fulfilled it will have to be postponed further and modified to read that the first half of the twenty-first century belongs to Canada. But I hope that this government will not be in power sufficiently long to retard Canada's rate of growth to that extent.

That, Mr. Chairman, about completes the review I had intended to undertake of the immigration situation in Canada today. We have in the past benefited enormously by the immigration we have had, and we believe that that experience and that pattern can be repeated in the future. We believe, however, that the government is not showing any signs of doing what it said it intended to do, that is, pursue a vigorous and realistic immigration policy, or of pursuing that also within the principle the government itself laid down, the principle of maintaining the ethnic balance of the country.

I submit that the figures I have placed on the record establish the inadequacies of the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration government's present program in these respects, and I urge the minister and hon. members opposite-as the hon. member for Spa-dina did in 1950-to take out their flints and stones and try once again to strike a spark which will light a fire under the immigration department of this government.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kamloops has, I think, given a very interesting criticism and review of some of our immigration policies, and I too propose to say something about immigration and then perhaps turn to the other departments of government which are administered by the present minister of immigration.

I think, of course, that immigration, if it is to be successful, must be realistic. It must give the people who come into this country a true impression of the kind of country to which they are coming, the kind of life they may expect to lead in this country, and we who are here already should give them a welcoming hand.

Perhaps I can say this as one who was an immigrant to this country almost 45 years ago. I say this because in my first year or two I fell in among a friendly group of Canadian citizens in western Canada, and through them I became a very happy citizen of this country in which since then my life has been and will be spent.

Therefore, I think that one of the things that the people across our country should do is to do their level best to welcome immigrants when they come into the country and assist them in finding their feet in what is, after all, a very new life for all of them.

During my 45 years' experience in western Canada I have seen people coming into the country who at the time looked perhaps rather difficult to absorb into our Canadian way of life. I am not so alarmed about the ethnic balance as is my hon. friend from Kamloops. In my lifetime I have seen in western Canada people who came into this country from eastern, central, and southern Europe, and I have worked among them and have come to know them very well. I must say that sometimes these people were exploited by those who were already here. But I have had the pleasure over the last number of years of seeing the children of these immigrants-depressed peasants, very often, from those parts of Europe to which I have referred-play a very important part in the life of our country.

Indeed, just over a week ago I had the privilege of being able to accept an invitation to witness the opening of a large Roman Catholic church in my constituency, and I was very happy indeed to meet the new

6794 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration bishop of Saskatoon. Many of the immigrants who came from eastern Europe gave all their children an opportunity to integrate themselves into the life of this country, and among them is the new bishop of Saskatoon who, I am certain, will play a very worthy and important part in the life of the province to which his parents came.

It made me feel a little bit older than I am, because he was born near the town when I was principal at Sedley, Saskatchewan. It made me feel that, after all, life was passing along. I think I had some of his family at school in those days. I just mention that matter in passing, because, as I say, I am not so much worried about the ethnic origin of people who are coming to this country. Of course, I want to see the people who come here become imbued with our spirit of democracy, to understand our parliamentary and other democratic institutions, and to become good citizens of Canada. That I have seen them do. If we have a carefully planned system of immigration I believe that we shall meet with the success that we have met in the past. We have an excellent school system in our various provinces. The teachers in the schools throughout the years have done a great deal indeed to build up the kind of citizenship of which I think we can all be proud, not only in western Canada but all over this country.

What I was going to say is this. I think every care should be exercised to see that immigrants, when they plan to come to this country, are given a correct impression of what they will find when they reach here.

I am also going to say, from my own personal experience, that I was fortunate, as I have already said, about the Alberta people among whom I landed 45 years ago. But I recall an immigration lecture which I heard before leaving Devonshire.

I had bought my ticket to Edmonton, Alberta, in January 1910. Shortly afterwards an immigration agent from the government or from the railways-I forget which it was-visited the little town where I was born and where I was at that time. I went to the lecture and I saw some beautiful pictures of Canada. Among them was a picture of the city to which I was going, namely the city of Edmonton. Then the next picture that was thrown on the screen was that of rather nice-looking girls picking peaches in an orchard. The placing together of those two pictures led me to think that when I got to Edmonton I would find peach orchards. As a matter of fact, I remember driving from Strathcona, as it was then-it is south Edmonton now-into north Edmonton as it is today, because there was no C.P.R. station there then; and crossing the river

valley by bus I saw some cottages with a few little trees that I understood afterwards were poplar trees. I turned to a gentleman whom I had met on the train and had been talking to, and I said, "I suppose those are peach trees". That was the effect of the placing on the screen of two pictures in close proximity.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

What about the girls?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

I was already engaged to be married at the time so perhaps I was not as interested in the girls; but they were very nice-looking girls, I remember. That brings me to this point. What was being done in those days is being done now.

I have here a clipping from a London evening paper-it is from an issue in February of this year-containing a report of a lecture in the civic hall at Croydon early in February. We are told that there was an audience of 800. The article says this:

Canada was in need of many types of workers, but the main shortage was in artisans, farmers, qualified nurses, shorthand typists and domestic helpers, said Mr. Don Brown,-

I do not know who Mr. Don Brown is. I am quite sure he is not our colleague from Essex West.

-a Canadian government official, at an emigration lecture, organized by Messrs. Thomas Cook & Son, and held at the civic hall, Croydon, on Monday.

The heading of this article is, "What Canada Offers her Immigrants: Work for All, Low Cost of Living, Lower Taxes".

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink

June 26, 1954