It was impossible to guarantee jobs or living accommodation before immigrants arrived, as much depended on the qualifications, experience and personality of the individual, but in a land as vast as Canada it was not hard to find work.
I venture to think that if any of those 800 people came to Canada as a result of that lecture, they would be disillusioned and disappointed, would write letters back to this London evening paper and would tell them how they had been tricked into believing that conditions were quite different from what they actually are in this country. That kind of thing hurts immigration rather than aids it. The article went on to talk about education for the children. It states:
Education was under the control of the various provinces, but it was free up to the university standard and, even then, only a nominal fee was charged.
In most provinces today high school education requires some fee. I would not call the university fees today nominal fees. Nor would I agree with this statement:
Many students paid for their own college education by working during the summer holidays.
They can help themselves through college or university during their summer holidays, but with university fees what they are today and the cost of board and room what it is today, a statement of that description is also deceptive.
Of course the British immigrant is now becoming extremely conscious of the fact that we have no national health plan in this country, and that our social security system is incomplete and behind their own. Consequently Mr. Brown had this to say:
There was no national health scheme as such, but there were many comparable services, and a form of family allowance which was payable for each child, including the first.
A lecture of that description is, I think, deceptive and wholly wrong and should be stopped by our Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
As if to confirm all this, I have in my hand a letter received sometime ago from a gentleman who lived in Canada for a long time. He reminds me that I met him on two or three occasions in the city of Toronto. I am not going to read his letter,
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration but I am going to say that he tells me that he had lived in Canada for 40 years and that he is a 100 per cent imperial pensioner. He says he went to England to live-he is not an Englishman; he is a Scandinavian- because he could not exist in Canada on an imperial pension. That gives the opposite side of the story that the cost of living is less in Canada than it is in the United Kingdom. Then he goes on to tell me that he was in a shipping office near the place from which the letter was written, namely Thirsk, Yorkshire, in England, an agency for the Canadian Pacific Railway, where a young man was giving a lecture on Canada and trying to persuade people to emigrate to this country. This man goes on to say:
... it sounded so lovely, lots of houses, lots of jobs at $60 a week, no worries of any kind, pictures of Canadian farms, typical farms, with huge houses and lots of cows around them, no trouble to get one of these anywhere you like, just buy a ticket on the C.P.R. . . .
He goes on to say:
Now I know Canada needs population, but to drag people from the farm here with a lot of false promises is not fair, as England's biggest problem is food and they are desperate for farm workers here. I met a family here a day or so ago that went out to Canada three months ago and had to live all over the place and nobody wanted mother because she had done wrong and had a baby. What about that?
I will be glad to show the minister the letter afterwards. Of course I saw, as I have no doubt the minister did, the story in the Journal of June 23 of the 20-year-old German immigrant who said that he had been lured to Canada by promises of immigration officials in Germany of "a job for every man within 48 hours". I am drawing these cases to the attention of the minister so that greater care may be exercised. As one who was an immigrant to this country many years ago, I know perfectly well that there is no need to present a false picture, that if a person coming here is told the truth about this country, if he is willing to fit into the community and do what he can for himself and the community in which he lives in Canada, he will be perfectly all right. I think there is no country in the world which offers greater opportunities to young men or young women than does Canada. What I am saying to the minister is that we have got to be careful that we do not give an entirely false picture and cause disillusionment and bitter disappointment.
I also want to say something about the sponsoring of immigrants. I believe that Canada recognizes certain organizations as sponsoring organizations, shall I call them.
679S HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration We have the Lutheran or so-called confessional groups in Germany, certain Roman Catholic organizations and other organizations. Yesterday I met in this city a German lady who is here to attend the international conference of social workers or the conference of international social workers-I forget which is correct-in Toronto in the next few days. She was telling me about the international labour assistance organization which has its headquarters in Brussels. It is of course a non-communist organization and is associated with the international federation of trade unions, which of course is an anti-communist international organization. Incidentally, our two labour congresses are both members of the international federation of trade unions, and I believe that through the international trade union organization they make some contribution towards the international labour assistance organization. This organization not only assists in the immigration of displaced persons. This lady told me that she knew the organization had some 500 suitable immigrants who wanted to come to Canada.
The organization is recognized by the economic and social council of the United Nations. In addition to assisting able-bodied immigrants to emigrate to other countries, it is also active in looking after some of those who are unable to look after themselves, the aged and the sick. I think the immigration branch might look into this organization through our embassies and other channels with a view to making use of it and giving it recognition, because that is important. These organizations usually receive financial support from semi-private or private sources like the Ford foundation, and recognition by Canada would be very helpful in obtaining assistance from such sources. I ask the minister to look into the matter and see if something can be done to accord some recognition to a worth-while organization of this description.
The hon. member for Kamloops mentioned discrimination. I feel that there has been discrimination in the department of immigration. I quite agree with all that he had to say about our Chinese immigrants. I know many worthy Chinese who are now citizens of Canada who have had great difficulty in obtaining the admission of their children to this country. I support the hon. member for Kamloops in the plea he has made that the method of determining parentage should be reviewed by the department and that sworn statements might be given more credence than has been the case in the past.
But I do not think that discrimination stops there. I can think of some of our commonwealth associates, people from the West Indies, for example, where some of the oldest colonies of Britain are situated, people who have been associated with us in bonds of citizenship for centuries. If these people from the West Indies are coloured or even slightly coloured they have a very difficult task in trying to get into our country and settle here. Even if they are students they have difficulties in remaining here beyond the time they have set as being required for them to obtain their degree or education.
Of course the same applies to the East Indians. I do not know how long our Indian fellow associates in the British commonwealth are going to tolerate discrimination against people of East Indian origin. In other respects also I think there has been discrimination. I have heard from time to time about discrimination even in the choice of people from Europe.
At the end of the war we had departmental officials overseas who thought that every person who was more or less socialistic or associated with a socialistic organization was a communist. Yet among the bitterest opponents of modern communism are those to be found in the socialist parties of Europe. Before we send officials over there to screen people we should be very careful to see that they are told exactly what the position is in that respect.
I have said something about immigration. I want to make it perfectly clear first of all that I think the minister's policy of having a cut-off date so that immigrants will not arrive here in the depth of winter or in autumn when winter is approaching and be faced with hardships is a good policy. I support that. I think that immigration should be properly planned. We should try to bring in immigrants and place them where they can be placed without displacing Canadian workers. If displacement of Canadian workers is allowed, I think it will cause a great deal of opposition to immigration as such. This country requires more population and the opportunities that are here for great expansion should be taken advantage of under a careful plan.
There is one other group I should like to mention in connection with immigration. I believe our department might perhaps give a little more attention to trying to bring in orphans for adoption. I know of people in this country who are sending over $15 each month to Europe to maintain a war orphan in Europe. I believe that end would be much better served if we could bring a child into this country, and place that child in a good
Canadian home, because there are homes that are seeking children for adoption. The child could be brought up in a Canadian home, in a Canadian environment and then would become a first class citizen of our country. I mention the immigration of orphans as worthy of consideration.
I do not want to speak too long, but I want to say one other thing in connection with the Indian department. I was very happy last night to hear about the situation at Sarnia. I believe that the minister, in encouraging the co-education, if you like, of Indian and Canadian children
Indians are of course Canadians but I mean children of Indian origin and children of Anglo-Saxon, French and other origins-is doing a good thing. I believe that is something that should be encouraged everywhere. I have never been satisfied with the residential school as the solution to our Indian problem; I have never been satisfied that was a wise thing. I know it is not always possible, but I think it would be better to have these Indian children mixing, in so far as possible, with white children. They may be in separate schools or public schools, but let the two groups attend the same school. I am convinced if that is done we shall find the Indian child has just the same kind of ability as the average white child. I do not believe there is any difference in individual aptitudes or intelligence because of the colour of the skin.
I am quite sure that in the past we have not given the Indian child the opportunity that child should have had to live a full and decent life. I know we are not touching on health, but it is satisfactory to know that the health of the Indian population is being improved by the provinces and the dominion in co-operation with one another. This has resulted in an increase in the Indian population. I believe that is all to the good. After all, the Indians are the original occupants of this country and have a culture of their own. I have never agreed with the view that was expressed in some quarters half a century ago that time would settle the Indian problem because the Indians would become extinct. I am happy to know that is not happening. Given the opportunities for education, I believe that the Indian boy and girl can achieve an educational standing and enter useful fields of endeavour, not only on the farm and in industry, but in some of the higher branches of learning. I am, therefore, very happy to know that the minister is encouraging this type of association and co-education.
I know that the house is hoping to prorogue today, so I propose to take up no more time with this department. I have tried to say
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration all I want to say at the moment. I believe we are all interested in doing the best to promote the kind of immigration we believe will build up the kind of Canada that we hope will develop in the future.
May I say that I do not intend to make a comprehensive review of the subject, in view of the extremely able analysis of it that has been presented by the hon. member for Kamloops on behalf of our party. May I say that I agree substantially with almost everything that has been said by the leader of the C.C.F. party. I would not wish to be misunderstood, but I could not help noticing his statement that the socialist parties are the most ardent antagonists of communism. May I say, without any reservation, that my regard for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is such that I can support from my own knowledge any statement as to his very strong views on that, but I hesitate to let his statement go unchallenged.
That, of course, opens the door to other approaches, and I do not wish to extend the argument through a historical review. However, I would not like to forget that Mr. Nenni of the socialist party in Italy is not offering a very good example of opposition to the communist party.
We all have them, but I do want to make it clear in raising that question that my personal regard for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is such that I would not in any way associate the comments I am making about any party elsewhere with my own belief as to his own firm stand on this subject.
I do wish also to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Peace River, who stood aside to permit me to speak because I have an appointment at 12.30. May I just interpolate, Mr. Chairman, another aside that has not to do with immigration. In view of the press report which I hear appeared this morning, I hope that this will not be taken as evidence of forming some alliance between the Conservative and Social Credit parties. I might say that the other comments to that effect are just as ridiculous as any suggestion of this kind would be. My statements in regard to our position as a Conservative party are clearly on record in that respect. With very high regard for the individuals who belong to the other party, I have
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I want to deal next with something that should have been cleaner up long ago. On March 15, 1952, an article was written by a highly qualified writer, Mr. Blair Fraser, in Maclean's magazine under the challenging title "How racketeers sold entry into Canada". Unless the facts are challenged, and they have not been satisfactorily challenged by the government, that article disclosed one of the most barefaced and heartless rackets in the history of this country. On a number of occasions questions have been asked in regard to this subject and as to what is being done. For instance, on December 9, 1952, I asked a question which had succeeded several earlier questions. I asked the following question on that day, as reported at pages 458 and 459 of Hansard:
I should like to ask a question of the minister of immigration. Is the minister in a position to report to the house what steps have been taken in connection with the disclosure of fraudulent conduct which was discussed in the house last session, and in respect of which we were informed inquiries were being conducted, and that action would be taken?
The present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who was the minister then, replied:
Yes. The charges against five or six people are now being prepared, in consultation with the Department of Justice. I think-although this is my own opinion-that they will likely be laid in the course of the next month, at the outside.
Whatever the department and the government have done about this matter following that, parliament has not heard about it. This is something that is not merely a case of prosecution of a few men. This discloses a wide-open, barefaced racket under which people were taking money to bring some immigrants here. Unhappily it would appear they were more successful in getting some of them here than those who have been following the normal methods have been. The fact is the success they have had in bringing people here only encourages racketeering of that kind. When they find the difficulties in following the normal methods they perhaps are encouraged to follow abnormal methods, and they may be encouraged to believe that that is part of the process of bringing people to this country. Not only do we want a clean record, in the opinion of countries from which we expect immigrants at this time, but we must make sure that any more rackets of this kind are disclosed in the utmost detail, and leave no uncertainty that this is being dealt with with justice, with even-handed consideration and in the firmest possible way, wherever irregularities are disclosed.
The minister should bring this committee fully up to date in regard to this matter and let us know exactly what has taken place; not merely to prosecute if there have been grounds for prosecution, but to clean out the condition that made it possible for that racket to develop in the first place in different countries in Europe.
I want to deal with something that I regard as extremely serious. It has been mentioned here before. I just want to mention the tale of two men because they tell such a differenl story. I want to read first from a Canadian Press dispatch of April 14 of this year:
Hon. Walter Harris, immigration minister, has declined to comment on a departmental decision ordering the deportation to France of Mr. and Mrs, Henri Zorin of Quebec city. The Zorins were ordered deported after Mr. Zorin was convicted on a charge of assault and paid a $50 fine. Undei immigration regulations immigrants convicted oi crimes are deported automatically.
The assault charge arose in connection with Mr, Zorin's defence of his wife after she was assaulted in Quebec city. Mr. Zorin pleaded ignorance of Canadian laws and said he would have appealed the sentence if he had known that deportation would be automatic.
That man, defending his wife from assault, convicted formally in respect of that sentence, was deported. Let me refer to another very unusual case where a man is still enjoying the full advantages of living in Canada. 1 am going to refer again and in greater detail than I have before to a case that I think should cause concern to all Canadians, and above all it should cause concern to those people in responsible positions in our labour organizations who have done so much to establish respect for the standards of organized labour in Canada. I think we have every reason to be proud of the respect for lav/ and order and the demands for respect for law and order which have been expressed by the great leaders of our recognized labour organizations in this country. It is for the reason that we want the very highest recognition of what has been done by men in positions of responsibility in the labour organizations of this country that I draw attention to this unusual case once again, because it is far from satisfactory that a man with the record he has should have been given the extraordinarily preferred treatment which contrasts so remarkably with that extended to Mr. Zorin who was deported-because a conviction automatically carries with it deportation.
I refer again to the case of a man named Harold Banks. This is a subject that involves not only the Department of Citizenship and Immigration but the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour as well. This man came to Canada some years ago for the specific purpose of carrying out activities oi
a particular kind in the way of labour organization. I think very real questions might be raised in regard to permitting him to come in under any circumstances if his record in the United States was actually known. I am unable to say whether his record was known at the time he came in. It has been known since then, however. I think it is important to realize that, as contrasted with Mr. Zorin, this man, having come in specifically for the purpose of organizing in Canada under a temporary permit, was admitted for permanent residence in Canada on May 8, 1952, after he had already been convicted under the Customs Act here in Canada the month before.
Surely if conviction in one case means deportation, conviction in another case should at least give rise to some inquiry as to the man's background before he is given permission to remain as a permanent resident. Therefore, I think it is necessary now to withdraw any veil of secrecy in regard to the record of this man, who has been in the courts of this country on more than one occasion since he came here.
I said before and I repeat that he demonstrated his acceptance of the privilege of being in Canada by being in possession of
36.000 smuggled cigarettes, in April 1952, and being convicted on a charge with respect to those cigarettes that month and fined $200. That was four times more than Mr. Zorin was fined. In addition to that, his automobile was seized, but was subsequently released because they were unable to prove that he had actually been the smuggler. But he was convicted of being in possession of
36.000 smuggled cigarettes the month before he was given permission to become a permanent resident in Canada.
This man had been convicted on different occasions in the United States. One of those convictions in 1930 carried with it a sentence of fourteen years in San Quentin prison. That, after all, is not something that should be disregarded, and it was known to the department before this man went to Geneva this year with the permission and approval of the Minister of Labour. His appointment was paid for from the general fund of the ILO to which Canada is a contributor, and in that way Canadian funds were used, through the formal approval of the government, to send this man as a Canadian representative at this gathering on this occasion dealing with a specific branch of labour organization activities.
26, 1954 6801
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
That was not his first conviction in the United States. In a form of what we might call release, he received a rehabilitation certificate in March 1934 under which, as a result of an act of the governor of the state, he received what is called a certificate of pardon. That does not mean pardon in the sense of absolving an individual from the crime. It merely means that this rehabilitation certificate, in other words a declaration of good conduct by special order of the governor, was given this man, and he was released. But on December 5, 1947, at Richmond, California, he was charged as an ex-convict with being in possession of firearms. The formal charge in regard to firearms was dismissed and on a reduced charge of disturbing the peace he was convicted and fined $20 or ten days. This record was known to the government this year at the time this man went to Geneva and before he left. It was known to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour as well as to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is an old rule, which should be firmly respected, that no man is guilty unless proved guilty and there must always be a presumption of innocence. But when you see facts such as this, and when you learn that this man came to Canada and was not only convicted under the Customs Act but also twice charged and acquitted here, one begins to inquire, and surely the pattern of charges should at least be a warning to the government. One cannot disregard the fact that this man was charged on June 28, 1942, with child stealing in the United States, though there is no evidence of conviction in that case. Later he was charged with murder and acquitted.
Now, let me emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that he was convicted on other charges. Surely there is some pattern here; and, in view of that, some concern must be felt when a man shows such a regular habit of getting into the courts under serious charges of this kind, no matter whether acquittals follow or not, and particularly when there are convictions for other crimes.
These factors were before this government, and these facts were known to this government for some time. Mr. Zorin defends his wife, is convicted of assault, and is deported to France. Mr. Banks carries on these activities and receives government acceptance of his nomination. Do not let the government say that the responsibility in this case was the responsibility of the highly respected members of one of our largest labour organizations. After all, they were
6802 HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration not in possesion of these facts; they did not have this record which the government had; and they did not know his background. This man was the head of a union which was dealing with a type of organization that was directly related to the conference which was taking place in Geneva, and it might not be unnatural that his name would occur to them for nomination.
But it was the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, and certainly the responsibility of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to consider the seriousness of this, because this question was raised in this house on several occasions before that man left. Why the difference between those two cases?
I think there is another point that should be considered, and this is something that should be of interest to organized labour in this country. While we certainly would not wish to keep out of Canada anyone who is desirous of coming to Canada, whose record is clean, and who is likely to become a good citizen, nevertheless I think that most of us might well like to feel that those who are in positions of great responsibility are men who are likely to become good Canadians.
Now, let us see what happens. This man is in the fortunate position of automatically drawing $500,000 a year through the dues paid to him. Nearly $300,000 of that amount comes from four main inland steamship companies, and the remainder from other companies with which he is associated.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no evidence that he accounts for any of this. I should think the Minister of Labour would be extremely interested in a situation of that kind. I should think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would be extremely interested, and I should think also that the Minister of Justice would be greatly interested in the methods adopted in other departments to make sure that people coming into this country are likely to be law-abiding citizens. On the record, this man is most unlikely to be a good Canadian at any time. On the record, this man has not demonstrated that he is desirous of accepting our laws. He has already broken our laws on the basis of an established court conviction.
I say with deep sincerity-and, after all, out of long experience in a position of administrative responsibility-that I know how great undoubtedly is the desire of the heads of our unions in this country to maintain law and order and to make sure that every great labour organization is a part of the Canadian society in the very highest sense
of that word. For that reason I would point out that we are still waiting to hear one word about the board of inquiry we were told would be set up with regard to this particular man.
I would have thought that the minister would have acted the very next morning, the moment these facts were brought to his attention, and that he would not have waited until they were brought out here in the house. If anything resulted from that inquiry, we do net know about it. We lack information not because a number of questions have not been asked; it is because we have not been taken into the confidence of the minister.
Mr. Chairman, the department of immigration is the department through which future citizens of Canada are brought into this country. I should like to know the reason for the difference in the treatment of the two men. Why was Mr. Zorin sent so promptly back to France? Why does Mr. Banks remain? Mr. Zorin's only offence, so far as we know, was that he defended the honour of his wife. Mr. Banks' record is before us for all to see. Even if there were not a single conviction, the regularity with which he finds his way through the doorways of the courts should in itself have proved to be some warning. No matter how many acquittals there may be, the extraordinary facility with which he gets involved in serious charges might in itself have led to some inquiry. There has been standing against him a conviction sufficiently important to call for a sentence of fourteen years in San Quentin penitentiary, of which number he served only four. Those are things which relate to the way in which we are going to bring people to Canada.
We have still unanswered those clear and specific charges that appeared in Maclean's magazine. We have unanswered questions that have been asked over and over again with regard to different people that are here. I could repeat several examples in addition to the Zorin case. I could name men whose service in the cause of freedom entitled them to consideration and respect but who have been harassed by the department while Mr. Banks has been living the life of Riley with the assistance of the government.
Mr. Chairman, this subject is too serious, even at this last day of the session, to be left wide open. If it is not possible for this subject to be fully dealt with, I submit that the unanswered disclosures call for one thing. Although the Prime Minister is not here, I press my request. May I say that I do not raise that point in any way as even implying criticism of the Prime Minister, because I know of the heavy responsibilities he accepts;
I know that right now he is preparing for an extremely important conference next week. But through the channels of Hansard and all the ministers who are here, I press with the utmost earnestness my request that a royal commission be appointed to inquire into the administration of the department of immigration so that we may know what lies behind these unanswered questions that are before us.
Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to lead off for our group in the discussion of this extremely important matter of immigration, but because of the illness of the gentleman who was to lead off for us I find it necessary to pinch-hit for him. I do so because I feel that this whole matter of immigration is of such great importance to Canada that there should be an expression from all groups in the House of Commons, either by way of criticism or commendation or caution to the minister and the officials of his department.
Immigration is of tremendous importance to a country like Canada. We find ourselves with vast expanses of a country which is sparsely populated. In a world of unrest and confusion, it is hardly likely that the people of overpopulated countries-people who could be classed as underprivileged people -would remain satisfied for long to look across the ocean and to see Canada carrying on in these vast domains with a population of 15 million people. That they would be satisfied is something that one just could not expect. There are many people in various countries who would be anxious to come to a country like Canada and to have an opportunity to carve out for themselves a home and to build up for themselves a decent standard of living. It is therefore true that one of our great problems today is to increase our population, and to do so in a way that will benefit the country as a whole and will make out of Canada the country that we want it to be. It is because I realize the importance of the matter that I decided I should say something about immigration.
In general I find myself in support of the minister's policy. It is a policy which could be described as one of selective immigration. Before I launch into a discussion of some of the matters that are related to selective immigration, may I just say a word about the minister himself. I feel that the minister is doing a good job. I have a high regard for him and for the attitude that he takes towards his work. He takes his work seriously and I know that he takes a pride in what he thinks is a good job. He has always given most careful attention to anything that I have brought before him, and I think I can say the same for every employee in his
26, 1954 6803
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration department. He not only takes a deep pride in what he thinks is a good job, but I believe that he goes out of his way to find out wherein his own feelings and policies may be at fault and that he tries to correct them. I wanted to say those things because I believe them to be true. They express my genuine feeling. I wanted to pass on that word of commendation to the minister because I know that in his efforts he will have to take a good many boots in the place that is built into men to be booted.
In our efforts to increase our population, I think we must continue to use care and good judgment. In our screening of prospective immigrants I think we should ever bear in mind that we want our Canadian population to be a choice people. That does not mean to say, by any means, that we are prejudiced against any people, no matter where they may live on the face of the earth. However, I believe that in Canada we have had a choice people. My judgment is that there is not on the face of the earth a people who can be said to be more choice than the Canadian population. I am taking it by and large from one end of the country to the other. Let us keep it so. We have had a high name. We have had a fine reputation through the whole world. Let us keep that reputation. We can keep it if we conduct our immigration policy with a single eye to continuing to build a choice Canadian population.
The people who love British ideals of freedom, justice and enterprise should, it seems to me, be the first considered for permanent entry into Canada. It is altogether too difficult in days like these to inculcate these principles into people who have not known them and who have not been educated in these ideas. There are too many areas on the face of the earth where people have not learned to appreciate British ideals of justice, freedom and enterprise. I think that in our screening we have got to be careful, at least until such time as our population has grown sufficiently by bringing in the choicest people. Then we may be able to relax a bit and allow some others to come when the great weight of opinion in the country will be such that newcomers can be easily taught who are unaware of our background and our ideals. I think, as I said, that we have got to be exceedingly careful at least for the time being. People who will come to love Canada and to make this country their home, with all that that implies, should receive the nod first.
I do not see any good sense in bringing prospective citizens into our country about whom there would be some doubt as to their ability to come to love the country. While
6804 HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I am saying that, may I add that it is becoming increasingly difficult, under the barrage of propaganda that covers the entire earth, for people to concentrate their love upon country. Some call that nationalism, and they criticize this inculcation of love of country because they say it becomes narrow nationalism. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will take my chances with them before I will with these psychoneurotics who have no capacity to love anything and who call themselves citizens of the world.
We want the kind of people in the country who will come to love Canada. It is the only way we can build up that real patriotism, that real feeling of affection that will make them struggle for the country instead of against it. There are altogether too many who are capable of loving and living a lie. I have often thought of an expression which is not very wholesome in its sound, but it certainly carries the right connotation. Even a louse will cling to the flesh on which it feeds. I think we ought to think of that in connection with our immigration policy. We need in our country people who are ready to pioneer, who are ready to work and to put up with some hardships in order to win for themselves a measure of material security, people who at the same time will be prepared to take their responsibilities of citizenship.
In bringing that kind of people to our country I think it is important for us to give them every help and every encouragement that we can so that they can be prepared to take their responsibilities of citizenship. They have got to understand, and if they are to understand then we have got to be prepared to make the wisest use of their own languages.
Something has been said here today about the ethnic press. I support what the Leader of the Opposition said in that regard. I believe the ethnic press offers one of the finest ways by which we can get over to these newcomers to Canada in their own language, the language they understand and appreciate, what our ideals consist of, what we expect of them and how they can best integrate themselves into the Canadian way of life and protect themselves against the propaganda that all too often besets them immediately they enter the country.
I have been keenly interested in the possibilities of the use of the ethnic press to help our immigrants to this country. After talking with the editors of such papers, I have often wondered why it is that the foreign language press is neglected. I do not mean by not giving them moral support. That is not what I am trying to get over. I think that we should be going out of our
way to give encouragement to the loyal foreign language press of this country; but, as I say, it is not merely a question of moral encouragement. There is another thing. According to Allan Boyd, who seems to be something of an authority on the foreign language press, the communist foreign language press in Canada is well organized, and the interesting thing is that it is well supported. How? Well, support means finance to keep the paper going, to make it possible to have sufficient employees of the kind required to do a job.
How is it that they can get advertising? They get it and they get plenty of it, but the loyal foreign language press cannot. It does seem to me that there are ways by which we can ensure these foreign language newspapers that are loyal the means by which they can continue to publish their efforts. Why would it not be possible for the federal and provincial governments to take advertising in these newspapers? The Post Office Department has to advertise. The Department of National Defence has to do a lot of advertising. The Department of Trade and Commerce has to do a great deal of advertising. Even the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has to do a lot of advertising.
I have heard such hon. members as the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace criticize expenditures for advertising. Nevertheless I feel that the government, if it is to make the wisest use of this great educational factor, should go out of the way to take advertising in the loyal foreign language press of Canada. I want to quote briefly the substance of something that was published in the Financial Post on November 1, 1952, in this same connection. Speaking of the use of the ethnic press, the article has this to say:
Fighting the propaganda of the left-wing papers is Canada's democratic foreign language press. Editorially, all of the 139 free papers are for democracy and the Canadian way of life, though their effectiveness is sometimes hampered by the multitude of national factions and the opposing ideas they represent.
The article goes on to point out that the great weakness of the loyal foreign language press is lack of facilities, which is quite unlike the Kremlin-supported foreign language press in Canada. It goes on to say that the subversive effect of the Kremlin-supported papers is beyond our comprehension, and it must be remembered that these Kremlin-supported papers get into the hands of our immigrants immediately they arrive in this country. The papers are in their language and these people do not know and have no way of knowing. I say the best way to make-
it known to them is to use, by every means possible, the loyal foreign language press. The Financial Post article goes on to say:
Set against these inadequate tools-
Of the loyal press.
-is the editor's important responsibility to link the new world way of life with former traditions and to introduce Canada to his readers. Many of the editors-
Speaking of the loyal press.
-having experienced Soviet oppression have a dynamic yardstick with which to measure the value of Canadian freedom and are eager to combat subversive elements among their peoples. They actually make up one of the most active anti-communist groups in the country today. Often, because of their limited, personal resources, it's an unequal battle.
Now, let us see that it is made a more equal battle. I support by every vehemence at my command the appeal made in this connection by the Leader of the Opposition.
There is another thing I believe we ought to keep in mind as we contemplate the policies we shall follow with respect to screening and measuring the type of prospective immigrants. I believe that in making our selection we should be sure that the selectees have a proper background, both of tradition and of experience, so as to be better able to find and properly fill positions that will yield them a satisfactory living in this country. In this connection, I think we should be exceedingly careful to ensure that our prospective immigrants know exactly the conditions to which they are coming in Canada. Much has been said about that already, and I shall not repeat it. Let us not be guilty of continuing to allow beautiful pictures to be presented to these prospective immigrants, pictures that prove not to be in keeping with the facts when they arrive here. Let us give them the truth, and see that they get the truth. Furthermore, let us be sure that when they do come they are the type of people who can fit into the jobs that are here for them.
I am not one of those who worry too much about the matter of employment. I know a lot has been said by various groups and labour unions who think that immigration is too rapid. We have to use some caution, of course, but I believe that if we are reasonably cautious about the speed of the application of our immigration plans we can assure every single one of these people who come a decent job. I believe, with the Globe and Mail, as expressed in their editorial of December 15, 1953, that every immigrant who comes into the country, who is a capable and well selected immigrant, makes jobs for
26, 1954 6805
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration people. I believe that is a fact. I heard a delightful talk by the minister of immigration down at the Chateau Laurier not so long ago on the occasion of the annual scout dinner.
I recall a lot of the things he said, and when this Globe and Mail editorial was drawn to my attention, I discovered that one of the employees of the department of immigration, speaking at Niagara Falls last autumn, had said almost essentially the things the minister said down at that dinner. I just wanted to mention one or two of the things that were pointed out in this editorial, which is headed, "One in Five". It starts out this way:
Sometime early in the new year, Canada will receive its millionth post-war immigrant. This newspaper would sooner it were the two millionth or three millionth, because it firmly believes that Canada's biggest problem-and the root of nearly all the other problems-is its lack of population.
I want to point out to the Globe and Mail that it is just as well not to get into too big a hurry. I think we ought to take a reasonable speed and keep it. Then, the editor goes on:
This is not a desirable state of affairs. Nor, we believe, is it necessary. Given proper leadership at the top, the Canadian people would accept large-scale immigration as a basic principle of national policy.
I emphasize that. Farther down the editorial continues:
. . . Mr. John D. Sharp, the department's regional liaison officer at Niagara Falls, last week showed that city's junior chamber of commerce how immigrants make jobs for established Canadians. He pointed out that about 38 per cent of post-war immigrants have bought cars;-
I remember the minister mentioned that down at the Chateau Laurier.
-and about 40 per cent own their own homes. Something more than 40 per cent have household appliances, such as refrigerators, and 52 per cent are living in single-family houses with everything that implies in the way of domestic purchases.
I point out, Mr. Chairman, those are impressive figures, and they indicate clearly that those people who are being brought to this country are successfully integrating themselves into Canadian life. They are not putting other people out of work because every time they buy an automobile or an electrical appliance or a home, they are giving work to some Canadian people who are already established here. I do not, therefore, fear too much any large scale immigration, so long as it is brought about under careful screening arrangements and a carefully selective policy.
Something has been said about discrimination, and the Chinese have been mentioned. I have had quite a lot of experience in this matter, and I want to preface what I have
6806 HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to say about it with this remark. Taking it by and large, the Chinese people of this country are good citizens. I have found nearly all whom I have met good Canadian citizens. They are ready to take their responsibilities. I know the problem the minister is facing, but I do believe that on some occasions too little attention has been paid to the sworn statements purporting to establish relationships between prospective Canadian immigrants and Canadian citizens who have been in the country for many years.
I know something of the problems involved, but I keep coming back to the pertinent fact that in these things we are dealing with human beings who have just as poignant feelings, deep and tender emotions, as we have even though their skins may be a different colour. There are many borderline cases, difficult to handle. I know it is difficult, under present circumstances, to establish true relationships between the applicant for entry into Canada and Canadian citizens already here, but they are not so many in number. I believe because they are not so numerous we might perhaps relax a little bit in connection with some of these cases and allow the children to come in.
I know of cases, for example, where the wives of Canadian citizens remained in the old country, and when the communist revolution took place they went through untold suffering. Actually, some of them did adopt the children of brothers and sisters who were killed in the communist coup. In all respects it would seem to me that these children belong to the mother who took them, cared for them, and adopted them. It does seem to me that in the few cases that could be clearly established, even though those children may not be under the age limit, we eould relax the act. I believe it would be wise to strain a point and let them come in with the mother and father and keep together. I believe they would make good Canadian citizens. As I say, they are so few in number, it would not complicate our problem here very much, if at all. Even though in their great care to fulfil the letter of the law I feel the departmental officials, in some cases, have been too discriminatory, nevertheless I have always found the immigration officials ready and willing to re-examine the facts. I have discovered that, and I want to pay that tribute to them. They have always been ready and willing to re-examine facts and, it seems to me, they have done a good job.
I do not want to take too much time because I realize we want to get to the end of this session. However, I would have liked time to refer to the Indian problem at some greater length, because I believe there is a real problem, and I would say only this to the minister, that that problem is in connection with band autonomy. I am sure he realizes that problem.
Some things have been said about granting Indian bands full autonomy, to determine who should be the members of bands and who should not. This matter is full of repercussions and dangers, and just how to handle the situation is not clear to me. I am afraid I cannot advise the minister on that point. I am sure however that it is something that will engage his attention because, now that bands are coming into some wealth-oil and other mineral wealth -it seems to me there is the inclination all too frequently that, in their exercise of autonomy, bands will try to limit their numbers unreasonably so as to make it possible for each member of a band to have more wealth.
That is a problem that will have to be faced. As I have said, 1 have not been able to determine just how it will be done. I would however ask that the minister give it his consideration, because it is a real problem.
Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Kamloops and others who have spoken, I regret that these important estimates have come so late in the session. It is a question of too little and too late- too little time to discuss them and too late to take advantage of that time.
I must say, in line with what some others have said, I am an immigrant. My parents were farming people in England, who came to this country and nearly froze to death on the prairies. Then we saw some magnificent advertising about British Columbia, the Kootenay country-apple trees in bloom halfway up the mountain. And when we got there, there were no trees in bloom, in fact no apple trees. I remember my father purchasing some settlers' effects in Winnipeg, and there was included in those effects 200 feet of inch-and-a-half rope to pull the trees down. Well, we spent a lot of our money, but fortunately for us, some of our relatives died in England, and we survived that rather difficult period.
I do think the present unemployment situation and the criticism from various places indicate certain weaknesses in the government's immigration policy. Let me say before proceeding further that I realize fully the difficulties of the minister's task.
People have a habit of rising in the house and asking for a vigorous immigration policy, and then of rising again and complaining about unemployment. I realize that, and I hope that in what I shall say I shall be strictly logical. However, growing dissatisfaction seems to be indicated by the representations made by municipalities, which representations, I am sure, the minister has received. It is indicated by the growing concern of trade unions and of certain Legion branches in some areas. It is also indicated in the correspondence received by members of the House of Commons-and in this connection I shall refer to one or two items.
I have here a telegram dated May 17 from the association of Kootenay municipalities which, I have no doubt, the minister also received. This organization represents 20 municipalities, and the telegram indicates that they are very much concerned about the unemployment situation, and the fact that unemployed immigrants were causing these municipalities certain expense. This is the telegram I received:
The association of Kootenay municipalities respectfully suggest that the federal government immediately restrict that immigration which will in any way aggravate the unemployment of Canadian citizens.
And this is signed by Roger N. Chester, secretary. That is an indication that municipalities are experiencing some difficulty because of unemployed immigrants.
Then the Ottawa Journal of April 27, 1954, carried the following heading: "Sault Claims
1,000 Immigrants on Relief". The first paragraph states:
An angry city council blasted the federal government last night for an immigration policy which it said had dumped 1,000 penniless and jobless immigrants on its relief rolls.
And it goes on in a similar vein.
Then I have here an article from the Nelson Daily News of April 17, 1S54, under the heading "Employment of Destitute Immigrants by Works Projects Urged at Legion Meet". The article goes on to say that the East Kootenay Canadian Legion zone meeting discussed the plight of hundreds of immigrants who are now destitute from unemployment, and asked that the federal Department of Public Works undertake projects to relieve that condition.
I also have here an article from the Kootenay Free Press published in Trail. It is dated February 18, 1954, and carries the heading "Rain Soaks Jobless Immigrant's Hovel". It describes an immigrant living in a hovel made from lumber scantlings and cardboard.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
And here I have the article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of June 23, and to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred, bearing the heading, "Jobs for All in 48 Hours Lure to German Immigrant." The item goes on to explain that this immigrant considered that Canada was oversold to him.
I believe this does indicate some lack of planning in respect of our immigration policy, and a certain lack of realism as to what the situation may be in Canada a few months ahead.
In addition to the criticism of the over-all policy, I find considerable criticism of the policy in respect of immigrants for farm work. This was discussed when the estimates of the Department of Labour were before us. It would seem that these people are pretty well coached in Europe. Some who are unsuited for farming say that they are coming to Canada to farm. They receive assistance, and then apparently they go into industry shortly after arrival.
There is considerable opposition from trade unions to the bringing of immigrants from Europe by railroad contractors, where these immigrants would find work on the railroads, where no collective agreements exist, and where they can be employed at lower wage scales and under poorer working conditions than exist where collective agreements are in effect.
I intend to ask some questions concerning a matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. However, as it is now one o'clock, perhaps I might be permitted to resume after lunch.
In continuing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal briefly with a question that concerns the members of this group and I am sure a good many members of the house and a good many Canadians. Because there may be wives and children involved in these cases I am not going to mention names, I shall simply say, Mr. So and So.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Earlier in the session the hon, member for Winnipeg North asked certain questions in the house as follows:
1. Are any French nationals now resident in Canada who have been convicted in the French courts of treason or of collaboration with the German occupying forces?
2. If so, how many and who are they?
A. The department knows of the following:
Five names are mentioned. I continue:
3. How many, if any, entered the country illegally and have now been permitted to stay?
A. All the above named. Copies of the orders in council under which they were landed were tabled in the House of Commons on the 11th day of March, 1949.
4. How many have applied for Canadian citizenship?
5. How many have been granted Canadian citizenship?
Another set of questions was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North as follows:
1. When and how did enter Canada?
A. On December 1, 1946, as a non-immigrant. As the House of Commons was informed on March
2, 1949 was granted a landing under
authority of order in council P.C. 2920, dated June 29, 1948.
2. Was he, at any time, an inspector of the Waflen SS?
A. Information not available.
3. Has he been sentenced in any French court for treason?
4. If so, what was the sentence?
A. He was sentenced to death in absentia by a French court of justice as guilty of having had dealings with a foreign power with a view to encouraging the undertakings of that power against France.
5. Has been granted Canadian citizenship?
In dealing with this subject I want to draw the attention of the committee to the section of the Immigration Act dealing with prohibited classes. Section 4 (1) (d) says:
persons who have been convicted of, or admit having committed, any crime involving moral turpitude.
These are the persons who are prohibited from entering Canada. Then again clause (r) reads:
(r) persons who have been found guilty of high treason or treason or of conspiring against His Majesty, or of assisting His Majesty's enemies in time of war, or of any similar offence against any of His Majesty's allies.
Section 10 of the Canadian Citizenship Act reads:
(1) the minister may, in his discretion, grant a certificate of citizenship to any person who is not a Canadian citizen and who makes application for that purpose and satisfies the court...
And so on.
Paragraph (b) reads:
(b) he has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence therein;
(d) he is of good character.
In view of the law we cannot understand how these people were permitted to stay in Canada and how they were granted Canadian citizenship. We have in our possession copies of the judgments of the French courts, which were sent to us from Paris. I am not reading the judgments, but I am going to read a couple of lines with respect to the sentences in each case.