June 26, 1954

CCF

Herbert Wilfred Herridge

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

Mr. Herridge:

In fairness, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, I do not want to give the names. I will send the minister my slip when I am through. The part of the judgment in the first case reads as follows: . . . found guilty of anti-national actions against France, sentenced in absentia to imprisonment at hard labour for life and to national degradation for life, July 3, 1945, by the court of justice of Agen.

In the second case:

. . . sentenced to five years imprisonment and to national degradation for life by the court of justice of Toulouse for collaborationist sentiments.

In the third case:

. . . sentenced in absentia to the death penalty and forfeiture of all his property for treason, January 10, 1945, by the court of justice of Toulouse.

In the fourth case:

. . . sentenced in absentia by the court of justice of La Haute-Savoie to imprisonment at hard labour for life, national degradation for life and forfeiture of all property, February 26, 1946, for collaboration with the enemy.

In the fifth case:

. . . sentenced March 28, 1945, in absentia to death as guilty for dealings in time of war with a foreign power with a view to encourage that power against France.

Inspector Waffen S.S.

That means he was serving the German gestapo very well indeed.

These men entered Canada under false names, with false passports, and were provided with false visas. I might say that a high French government official stated they belonged to an organization who murdered the French minister, Georges Mandel, in the forest of Fontainebleau, massacred resisters, and betrayed allied parachutists who were hidden by brave Frenchmen who were shot. Some of these parachutists may have been some of our own men.

Canadian citizenship is a very valuable possession that should be granted only to persons who qualify according to the law.

When I was speaking on this question I could not help remembering the remarks of

the Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1946 when he was introducing the Canadian Citizenship Act. I recall them vividly because I always take pleasure in listening to the organ-like cadences of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On that occasion he pulled out all the stops and the pedal fortissimo. 1 want to read a portion of that speech as it appears in Hansard of April 2, 1946, at page 505. This is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was then the secretary of state, speaking:

But there is no finer club in the world so far as we are concerned than the club that I would characterize as the Canadian family. We should want, therefore, to impress upon new Canadians whom we shall welcome and want to share in our national endeavours that they are joining no mean society but a society that will give them freedom and an opportunity perhaps that they have not had in other lands, and at the same time to point out to them the nature of the obligation undertaken and tell them something of the kind of country and the kind of general political basis of the Canadian society itself.

And then again the minister on page 502 of the same volume:

For the national unity of Canada and for the future and greatness of this country it is felt to be of the utmost importance that all of us, new Canadians or old, have a consciousness of a common purpose and common interests as Canadians; that all of us be able to say with pride and say with meaning: "I am a Canadian citizen.*'

I am sure every hon. member of this house, Mr. Chairman, agrees with those sentiments. But we cannot understand how those sentiments can be given expression by a minister of this government when we find the sort of people I have mentioned being permitted to enter Canada and being granted citizenship in this country. The government of which the hon. gentleman is a member saw fit to grant citizenship to persons who have proved traitors to France, traitors to our cause, traitors to all we hold most precious and sacred, and traitors to the ideals upon which Canadian citizenship is based.

Those people now have the right to say, "I am a Canadian citizen." We in this group strongly protest this action and while I am not one of those who wish to see the death penalty imposed upon any person, X think that this government, when it discovered those persons were in Canada and had entered illegally, ought to have been told, in view of their records, to depart to more suitable places as Count de Bernonville did. There is no place in Canada, Mr. Chairman, for people who have proven themselves so untrue to all the things we stand for.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure investigations were held by the proper authorities in the immigration branch and by the R.C.M.P., but if there were, I am afraid they

26, 1954 6809

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration must have listened to the romantic tales told by those people. We think this house is entitled to an explanation of the reason why these people were given citizenship and allowed to stay in Canada. I am of the opinion that the minister was not told the facts by some of his officials before these decisions were made. We all have great respect for the minister, and while we differ with him on occasion I am quite sure he is very anxious to see that we have the right type of people coming to Canada, and obtaining citizenship.

The minister comes from a very fine Canadian family. He served with distinction in the second world war, and I am quite sure the hon. and gallant member must feel somewhat uncomfortable when he realizes that his department has made it possible for persons who were traitors to France and traitors to Christian civilization to say now, "I am a Canadian citizen."

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will make some explanation to the house of this most unseemly procedure. I could give some other cases but we have not yet received the documents. However, these are not isolated cases and they are more extensive than appears on the surface.

I am confident that our immigration service overseas is not all it is supposed to be, not only with respect to matters brought before the house this morning by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, but also with respect to the glowing picture with which immigrants seem to be presented. The service does not appear to make certain in all cases that the people we admit to this country are people who can become good Canadian citizens and subscribe to our democratic ideals. In my opinion the minister would be well advised to go to Europe personally and visit some of his own immigration offices and see what is happening there.

I support some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members who have spoken in this debate to the effect that there is not effective screening of some people who come to Canada at this time. I realize there are difficulties and even though there is careful screening some unsuitable people are bound to slip through the screen; but we are of the opinion that not enough attention is being given to stop that type of person.

I have had several questions brought to my attention recently, and indeed one of the managers of our national employment service brought to my attention the arrogance with which a former SS man treated him because he could not give him a job immediately. I can also tell you of an experience I had

6810 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration recently with another immigrant. I spoke to this chap because I am always interested in finding out how they are getting on, and I said to him, "How do you like Canada?" He said, "Well, not too much". I said, "What is wrong?" and he said, "In Canada you say 'Uncle Louie' and in Germany we say 'Herr Adenauer' I said, "What else is wrong?" and he said, "In Canada when a Canadian soldier is in a restaurant and a Canadian officer comes in he goes on eating. But in Germany when a German officer comes in a soldier stands up, salutes, and opens the door". Then I said, "What else?" and he replied, "Too many Jews in Canada. Hitler fixed them". I did not want to get upset with the man but I hope he will change his ideas after living here some time. However, that shows that we are getting people into Canada who, after all that has happened in recent years, have not any idea of what we stand for in this country. Certainly there are hundreds of thousands of good German people anxious to come to this country who want to live under improved conditions and accept our democratic way of life. But I do not think it is necessary to bring to this country people who still adhere to the philosophy of those who saw fit to join the German elite guard and SS troops. Now, that is all I am going to say in this connection.

I say these things with conviction and feeling because Canadian citizenship means something and it is something we should extend to people who in accepting it realize they are accepting one of the most valued citizenships in the world. I might add that the conversation with the man about whom I spoke was held in the presence of the widow of one of the finest men who ever lived in Canada, a man of Jewish descent and who died 10 years ago from his war disability.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I leave that subject at that point, and I now want to say a few words on our general immigration policy. I think that in certain aspects our policy, other than the policy for screening, is unfair to Canadians and unfair to the immigrants. I do not think we should bring in immigrants unless we are certain they are going to be placed in employment and are not going to compete with Canadians for already scarce housing. The present unplanned policy is unfair to Canadians and the immigrants concerned. It is now providing competition for employment and for scarce housing. We recognize our national responsibility to help ease the tremendous burdens created in Europe and other countries, and we think we have got to do all we can to provide homes for those people who need them. That is why the C.C.F. party has continually

urged a certain program with respect to immigration. That program is an assurance that standards of employment, wages, hours, and conditions of work of immigrants shall not be less than those in effect for other Canadians. Careful preparation and planning to ensure that houses and jobs are available for those who come and that the livelihood and living standards of our present population are not threatened. Also, non-discriminatory selection of immigrants from all countries and categories subject only to the limitations of a planned immigration scheme. Our immigration policy should provide for the bringing to Canada of as many desirable immigrants as can be absorbed into our economy without creating unemployment or intensifying the housing shortage.

We should also make very certain that no undesirable persons are allowed into Canada or obtain Canadian citizenship. As I said before there are multitudes of good people from other lands who would make excellent citizens in this country. I also think we should stop bringing immigrants to Canada to work on contract labour on railroads and projects like that where there are no collective agreements and on which they can be exploited and employed for less than persons employed for that class of labour generally receive.

Now, I want to make a plea for the admission of certain persons who are relatives of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin and I would like to make that plea as vigorous as I can. I realize some of these people have been admitted to the country and permitted to obtain citizenship. I might say that I had a long association with many excellent Canadian citizens of Chinese origin. They never become charges of the state and never ask for any government assistance. That fact is recognized across this country. They live in peace and harmony with other residents and have become essential ingredients of many communities in Canada. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to the brief presented by the Chinese benevolent association in which they ask for an easing of the regulations. As a matter of fact, we are showing discrimination against certain Canadian citizens, namely these Canadian citizens of Chinese origin, East Indian origin and other origins. We are treating them differently from the way in which other citizens in Canada are treated. This brief asks for consideration of certain important things. I am not going to take the time to deal with them at the moment. I am sure that the minister has gone over the subject carefully.

I urge that the representations of these excellent Canadian citizens of Chinese origin be sympathetically considered by the minister and his department.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dinsdale:

Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the committee is endeavouring to complete today consideration of this extremely important department. I therefore will not hold up matters unduly. However, I think it is unfortunate that we are pressed for time in considering such an important subject as the one that is before the committee at the present time.

The whole problem of immigration is one of the most complex ones that could be considered today because it deals with the subject of population movements. The movements of population have a vitally important bearing upon the delicate and difficult question of international affairs. Immigration is a matter that is extremely vital to Canada because, with the exception of a few North American Indians and Eskimos, all of us in this country are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants.

Since the war there has been an increasing emphasis on the necessity for increasing our human resources just as rapidly as possible. In the discussion today other hon. members have referred to the present change in attitude with regard to immigration arising from the unemployment situation of the past winter. As a result of the changing economic circumstances as our post-war boom tends to settle down, we find that there have been extremes of optimism and pessimism expressed in regard to the problem of immigration. We still see rather extravagant prophecies as to the population potential of Canada for the immediate future. On the other hand, there are those who recommend a severe tightening up on the influx of new citizens by the process of immigration.

Coming as I do from the western part of Canada, I tend to side with the more optimistic viewpoint. Perhaps that is because we in the west are continually faced with the wide open spaces and it becomes almost inevitable that the westerner leans toward an optimistic attitude with regard to population prospects for the future.

In a newspaper comment which dealt with the observance of 40 years of political activity in this country by the Minister of Agriculture I was interested to read that, in summing up that long experience in the public life of his country, he stressed-and stressed it strongly-the need for a larger population. Then yesterday the hon. member for Rosthern, speaking on the subject of the Saskatchewan dam, also dealt with 83276-431

26, 1954 6811

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the population problem from the western point of view. In Manitoba we have reached a provincial population of 790,000. In that vast geographic area a population of 790,000 is merely the proverbial drop in the bucket. I can understand why the Minister of Agriculture and other hon. members on the government side of the chamber are leaning strongly towards the need for a rapid increase in population resources within the restrictions of the ebb and flow of the economic situation. The only final solution for our western problems, of course, is an expansion of the domestic markets by means of population increase.

All that is merely by way of introduction. We could spend a long time in discussing many of the points that have been raised. The fact that they are so numerous and so complex merely indicates that there is a great need for a comprehensive consideration of this important subject of immigration. Such a comprehensive consideration of the subject is not going to be possible today nor, unfortunately, has it been possible since I came to the House of Commons in 1951. Perhaps some time in the not too far distant future there might be provided an opportunity to come to more realistic grips with this subject which has so many facets and which has such great significance for a young, developing and expanding country such as is our Dominion of Canada.

I have endeavoured to look back into the record of Canadian immigration in the past since confederation. So far as I can see, there has never been an aggressive policy carried out in this regard. Since we became a nation, the tendency has been to drift with the tide and to proceed on the basis of a stop-and-go policy. As far as the historical record indicates, there has been a general lack of imagination and vision. The immigration influx from time to time has been determined more by circumstances outside of Canada than by vigorous action from within. There is a possible exception to that statement in the movement of immigrants into the western plains when they were first opened for settlement. But the other great periods of immigration have been largely the result of circumstances beyond the shores of Canada. An example of such a period is the post-world-war I period when, owing to disturbed conditions in Europe, there was a large influx of new citizens into Canada. Then along came the depression and up until 1947 or 1948 immigration remained comparatively static. In the report of the minister of mines and resources-under which department immigration was handled in those days -for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1938,

6812 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration at page 234 I was interested to read the following statement, which indicates that even during the depths of the depression the officials responsible had a somewhat guilty conscience concerning our half-hearted immigration program. The report says:

Were it not for the fact that the Canadian public has become accustomed to small immigration returns from year to year the statement now published that Canada, with its vast territory and immense natural resources, received last year only 1,300 newcomers per month would be a matter of comment, having in mind the contribution that immigration has made to the opening up of the dominion in the past.

That state of affairs persisted, as I have indicated, until 1947. Then because of external pressure, again in the first instance largely arising from the refugee problem created by world war II, the government of Canada reluctantly moved into more active immigration again. As you read the debates of the house on immigration in the immediate post-war years or in the last two years of the war, 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947, you see there was a growing demand that Canada do something regarding the very urgent problem of the millions of refugees who had emerged out of the war situation. I came to the conclusion that members of parliament expressing public opinion were away ahead of the government with regard to the problem of displaced persons. As the result of the urgings of members, action was finally taken in 1947 and since that time we have had a fairly aggressive immigration program. However, I cannot help but comment that as the result of this historic reluctance to act in an aggressive manner, which has been characteristic of Canadian immigration policy right from the beginning of confederation, we missed out on a good many excellent potential Canadians. We missed out on a large number of refugee children, and I cannot help but think that if we had adopted, on a permanent basis, with respect to refugee children a policy similar to that which was adopted in the early years of the war when children were evacuated temporarily from the United Kingdom because of the spread of aerial bombardment, we would have made a great humanitarian gesture, a gesture that would have paid off in rich dividends in the future.

That is water under the bridge, but I refer to that situation because it is still typical of the attitude we find prevailing with respect to immigration policy at the present time. There is a lack of broad imagination and vision, although as the result of public opinion and parliamentary pressure we are beginning to move forward.

Dinsdale.I

There is another aspect of immigration which interests me. It seems to me that we have largely ignored humanitarian considerations in our immigration program. The fact that we have waited for external pressure, instead of initiating any aggressive program in the past, is indicative of this situation. Our attitude towards deportation, which was outlined by the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers in this debate, is also typical of the lack of humanitarian concern. I think it is extremely unfortunate in view of the world situation in this mid-twentieth century period. There might have been some excuse for such an attitude in the past before the international concept of human activity emerged, but today we are forced to consider the age-old questions: Am I my

brother's keeper? Who is my neighbour? Belief in the inherent inferiority and superiority of various races was fairly widely accepted even in Christian countries, notwithstanding the biblical dictum that He hath made of one blood all nations to dwell on the face of the earth. That belief in inherent inferiority and superiority was more or less generally accepted a few decades ago. But fortunately these ideas are tending to disappear under the pressure of circumstances as we are forced to rub shoulders more closely with the representatives of the various nations of the world.

Other members speaking today have referred to the broad principles and policy under which Canadian immigration is carried on, and I am not going to repeat what has already been said. I think all members of the house would agree that there must be some process of selection, on an ethnic basis, if you wish. You must keep out obvious undesirables, criminal types, mental incompetents and so forth, and the economic factor must be considered. But 1 am going to raise once more a subject that has been dealt with by almost every member who has spoken today, the question of the obvious discrimination towards Canadian citizens of Chinese origin. I feel that the legislation on our statute books respecting immigration is a carry-over from an attitude of mind that should have disappeared in our twentieth century civilization. I am not going to go into details concerning the Chinese problem, but it seems to me that the principle enunciated in the house on June 28, 1951, as recorded at page 4863 of Hansard, has not been applied as broadly as it might have been under the circumstances. At that time

the minister, who had been questioned on a problem of the immigration of dependents of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin, said:

Having in mind the present situation in China-

He was referring of course to the political disturbances there.

-and the known desire of parents to have their children with them, we have come to the conclusion that we will give consideration to those cases of unmarried children over twenty-one up to the age of twenty-five, to see if the circumstances warrant their admission on the grounds I have stated.

On the grounds of hardship.

Now, that was a very encouraging announcement, because ever since the disturbing events on the Chinese mainland the problem of the movement of dependents of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin has become increasingly urgent. I find that in application, however, of this broader principle, it only applies to those who are the remaining survivors of the family on the mainland. If there is any other member of the family still resident within China, no exception is made in the 21-year limitation for unmarried children.

This has resulted in a problem that was inevitable. The children of Canadian citizens succeed in getting to Hong Kong, which is the jumping-off point to Canada; and, because of the narrow application of the regulation, that is as far as they get. I understand the brief from the Chinese benevolent society indicates there are some 6,000 of them in Hong Kong waiting permission to join a father, in most cases, because the Chinese population in this country has tended to be largely a male population, owing to earlier policy in regard to their admission.

Perhaps I could emphasize the problem by just giving broadly one or two cases. I am interested in two cases in which the children are between 21 and 25. One is the son of a Chinese laundryman who is alone, and looking for someone to take over his business. The other is the son of a Chinese Canadian restaurant owner, who again is alone and he is quite willing to sponsor his son. He is quite willing to assure the son will not become an economic liability, and to comply with all the other demands of our Canadian immigration policy. The only reason both children are not admissible is that there are relatives still remaining on the mainland. They are in Hong Kong. They cannot go back to the mainland on pain of death. I do not believe they would be too popular with the present regime there, and they cannot go forward because of the regulations. This does constitute a humanitarian problem of some considerable proportions.

26, 1954 6813

Supply

Citizenship and Immigration

I do not believe we need to labour that point any further. But it seems to require the sort of action that was finally taken in the immediate post-war years in dealing with the refugee problem in Europe. When the Canadian government finally did get under way, after pressure from parliament and public opinion, a tremendous job was done, but many lives were lost and much suffering was caused because we delayed our action in that regard.

I said that most members of the house agreed broadly with the present policy of the department of immigration. If there is one query I would raise it is the seemingly arbitrary power of the officials of the department. In order to assure flexibility in immigration affairs, it seems that officials of the department, by means of order in council, can almost control the immigration situation as they wish. This fact is illustrated in so far as deportation matters are concerned where the officials, without recourse to the normal channels of justice, can arbitrarily deport immigrants from this country.

There is another query that comes to my mind, and I have endeavoured to gather some information on this very complex problem. At the moment it would appear that the occupational categories are being strongly stressed with reference to the movement of immigrants from Europe. The categories that are being stressed are those of domestics and agricultural workers. In looking at the statistics for the past two years, 1952 and 1953, this has resulted in a rather substantial influx of immigrants from Holland, from Germany and from Italy. In endeavouring to obtain information on this matter, I find that the reason these categories apply to these particular countries is the obvious reason that they are more amenable to the work of domestics or agricultural workers. I find, looking at the statistics for immigration from Greece for 1952, we have 1,691 and for the calendar year 1953, we have 2,059.

I happen to know there is quite a strong demand for a less restrictive policy in regard to immigration from Greece. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Greek situation would be comparable to the Italian situation so far as domestic and labour requirements were concerned. The answer seems to be just the reverse, that the Greeks do not adapt as readily in this country as do the Italians. There are Greek citizens in Canada already who, it would seem, have made a very successful adjustment to their new life in Canada. Notwithstanding this occupational factor, I have discovered that it is not compulsory for an immigrant to remain indefinitely in domestic or agricultural work. In fact,

6814 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the period of service at the maximum, I understand, is one year, and on the average the immigrants from those countries stay on the job to which they are originally sent for a period of some two months. There would seem to be other factors involved than the straight occupational requirement. Unfortunately, that is as far as I got with the inquiry because, as I say, it is a matter of policy, and nothing further could be said on the matter.

Other members want to have something to say in this discussion, so I should like to conclude by suggesting that a topic of such importance as immigration, connected as it is with the general problem of population and human resources of this country, should receive wider consideration by this house than it has in the past. During my first session here in 1951, amendments were introduced to the act. They had been passed before I was aware they were before the house. In 1952, when the new act was introduced, the experience was exactly the same. I would very strongly suggest that we would have a more realistic immigration policy if members were brought more closely in contact with the scheme of things. All these divergent viewpoints created the belief that immigrants are a threat to the workers in this country. On the other hand the urgent demand of the west for larger population can be reconciled only if members have an opportunity to gather all the information and data involved and then, on the basis of that information, determine the policy that is best for this country.

I do not think such an important matter should be left entirely in the hands of officials of the department. I realize that we are having almost a full day's debate on the subject, but I wonder if what has been said in this debate by hon. members will have much effect in changing the present attitude towards some of these urgent problems to which reference has already been made.

I feel, Mr. Chairman, that, just as in the immediate post-war years, when we had a refugee problem to contend with, and there was a tremendous pressure of population in Europe, the people of Canada would be only too willing to make a maximum effort in assisting to solve this problem. Likewise I feel that if, through their elected representatives, the people are taken into the confidence of the department, and are allowed to have the necessary information, rather than simply be told that a certain person is inadmissible on grounds that cannot be revealed, we shall be able to come closer to a reconciliation of the pessimistic and optimistic viewpoints in these matters.

In the past the people of Canada have been ahead of their government in their thinking, so far as this matter is concerned. They have responded, when they have been called upon to respond in connection with the solution of very urgent population problems in the world. They would respond today in a similar manner if they had the opportunity to do so.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
CCF

Joseph William Noseworthy

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

Mr. Noseworlhy:

Mr. Chairman, I am sure all of us appreciate the minister's difficulties in the matter of immigration at the present time. While I think most Canadians agree that a few million people cannot expect to hold half a continent indefinitely, while other countries in the world are crowded, and while most people are agreed that it would be in the interests of the over-all Canadian economy that we have a larger population to share our tax burden, our transportation charges and the like, the question becomes involved and one about which there is a great deal of disagreement when we run into a period such as we are facing at the present time.

So long as our economy was expanding, so long as there was full employment, so long as skilled mechanics were needed, industrial workers were needed and labourers were needed, the Canadian people generally welcomed immigration. But today, with several hundred thousand Canadians unemployed, and with limited housing accommodation, the people of Canada by and large resent the influx of large numbers of immigrants. During a period of unemployment trade unions across this country are questioning the right of the government to bring large numbers of immigrants to the country at this time, thus swelling the army of unemployed.

People who find difficulty securing housing accommodation often resent the fact that new Canadians can obtain housing, or occupy housing, the supply of which is very limited. The influx of large numbers of immigrants at a time such as this does not lend itself to the creation of a spirit of friendliness as between Canadian citizens and new Canadians, nor does it do anything but stir up trouble and difficulty.

Much as we need a larger population in this country, the first responsibility of the government, if it is to supply that need, and if the government is to admit large numbers of people to this country, is to take measures to see that employment is available, as well as housing accommodation.

There are certain sections of the press and certain interests across Canada that are clamouring for more immigration. Those

same sections of the press and those same interests are generally decrying the fact that industrial workers are receiving too much money. They are decrying the fact that costs are going up, and they attribute the rise in those costs to the rising wage scales.

There are many special interests involved in bringing immigrants to this country. I would think that one of the minister's difficulties, one he must guard against in the interests of the whole country, is that he must see to it that the immigrants brought to this country are not brought here by any special interests, to serve those interests primarily. What we want in this country are immigrants who will become good Canadians, who are brought here for that purpose, and are not brought here for the purpose of serving any particular interest.

I suppose we have always been faced with the problem of employers interested in immigration for the sake of getting cheap labour. We have that class of employer with us today, and I am quite sure the minister would be the last person who would want to encourage immigration to serve special economic interests and to reduce the scale of wages for Canadian workers. It does not matter what that special group is, whether it is a religious group, a national group or an economic group, if that group is particularly interested in bringing immigrants to this country for the purpose of furthering the interests of that particular group, then I think the minister has to be on guard. We do not want this country filled up merely for the sake of filling it up with immigrants who are brought here to serve any particular interested group. As I have said before, in the interests of Canada, we want immigrants who will become worthy and loyal Canadian citizens.

I have a few special problems that I want to bring to the minister's attention. They are of a general nature and I think had better be brought up at this particular point. I have already spoken of employers bringing immigrants into this country for the sake of reducing our wage scale. Since early June I have had on the order paper a series of some thirteen questions, which were made an order for return a week ago, but the answers to which I have no hope whatever of receiving this session. These questions relate to one employer, the R. F. Welch company. Among other questions on the order paper, which probably the minister can answer today, are these: What arrangement, if any, has the R. F. Welch company with the department of immigration for the purpose of bringing immigrant workers to

26, 1954 6315

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration this country? Is my information correct that this particular company had an office established in some European countries, offices established on the maritime coast and offices established in the Union station at Toronto, next door to the government's own department of immigration? What is the nature of the contracts under which these workers are brought in by that company?

My information is that the immigrants brought into this country by that particular company are brought to work first of all on the Canadian National Railways. I am informed by trade union organizers that these newly arrived immigrants stay but a short time on their first job, and then are replaced by a new batch of immigrants. I am informed by the general chairman of the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees of the Canadian National Railways that the Canadian National Railways itself has been evading the order of a labour relations board, dated November, 1951, by transferring these newly arrived workers to the R. F. Welch company for payroll purposes, instead of keeping them on the Canadian National, and consequently are keeping these men employed at much lower rates than the rates fixed in the contract entered into with the workers union.

That is one problem I want to call to the minister's attention. Another complaint I get is that certain employers are able to persuade newly arrived immigrants that if they join a trade union, or participate in trade union activities, they will be deported. I should like the minister to tell us that personally. I doubt if anyone-

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:

May I say at this moment I never heard of such a matter from anyone, and if my hon. friends know of any trade unions who have that complaint, will they please send it to me and talk about it with me before they bring it up here in this house. I have no objection to my hon. friend speaking, of course, but it is really unfortunate that we now hear for the first time of complaints that I have no opportunity to investigate.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
CCF

Joseph William Noseworthy

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

Mr. Noseworthy:

This whole matter can be cleared up with a statement from the minister to the effect that no one is ever deported from this country because he joined a legitimate trade union or participated in legitimate trade union activities.

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 say that unhesitatingly, and if anybody suggested that that should be so I would oppose it in this house.

6816 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
CCF

Joseph William Noseworthy

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

Mr. Noseworihy:

I am very happy to have the minister put that statement on the record.

I have one other question to raise with the minister regarding immigration. It is one that I have dealt with on other occasions. I am merely going to ask the minister to tell us what action, if any, the government has taken or proposes to take as the result of the brief presented to him during the latter part of April by the Negro Citizenship Association on behalf of immigrants from the West Indies, those British subjects who, by regulation of the immigration department, are not British subjects and cannot be classified as British subjects for immigration purposes. What consideration was given to that brief? I shall not take the time of the committee to put the points of that brief on the record. The minister has the brief. I merely ask him to comment on it.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Michener:

I do not wish to repeat, and therefore I shall limit my statement as to the principles involved to an affirmation of my belief that immigration is desirable and necessary, and that its general effect is clearly to add to the sum total of employment, although in some places and at some time it may seem to have the opposite effect. The specific matters I wish to bring up are matters of practice and I do say that with some diffidence because my experience with the administration of the act is limited and these are impressions formed from that rather limited experience.

I appreciate there have been instances which perhaps have generated an attitude of over-caution if not suspicion in the administration of the act in order to be sure that the department is not deceived in enforcing the act and the policy of the government.

I would like to make a plea for a more sympathetic approach in certain cases. Those cases are the ones in which family relationships are involved. In the name of common humanity it seems to me that in these cases the utmost amount of sympathy should be displayed in the administration of the act. After all, the subject matter of the administration is human beings and not chattels or livestock. They are people who have family relationships and family feelings. I have in mind three different sorts of cases which will illustrate the type of approach I am suggesting.

First, there is the case of a wife in England of a Canadian citizen living in Canada and naturally she wishes to join him here. Her difficulty is a scar on her lung which naturally is a matter of concern from the medical point of view. After her case had

iMr. Harris.]

been deferred for some time and being in great anxiety to be accepted she visited private doctors and was examined apparently to their satisfaction, but permission is still being refused. That is a case of family separation and a case in which if there is any doubt I think a decision should be made in favour of family unity rather than the converse.

Then another type of case involves the nephew of a Polish Canadian resident engineer of reputation and standing who will shortly become a Canadian citizen. This case illustrates what I have in mind and regardless of the merits of the case I think it makes the point. This Polish uncle in Canada has no children and he and his wife established here wish to bring their nephew in and adopt and rear him as their own child. He is not an infant. He was behind the iron curtain as a young man in his late teens and he was so anxious to join his relatives that he shipped as a seaman on a Polish freighter and when he got into an English port he jumped overboard and swam ashore. He is in England now and would like to join his uncle. They would like to have him here. That is another case in which there are family ties involved and in which it seems to me a little different approach is needed than the cold and mechanical application of the immigration rules.

The third type of case is that of the children of Chinese Canadian citizens. Their plight has been dealt with sufficiently today and I wish to associate myself with what has been said on their behalf. There are not many involved and it seems to me that if any error is to be made in these cases it should be made, in cases where family ties are involved, in favour of unifying families rather than keeping them separated. If it is a matter of tipping the scales then I suggest that in such cases the scale ought to be tipped if necessary. It comes down to humanizing what might, where large numbers of people are involved, deteriorate into mechanical administration.

Another point in the administration of this act which involves thousands of decisions in the course of a year is the question of admittance. Since we had 168,000 admitted last year I think it would be fair to suppose that an equal number or perhaps even more were interviewed and not admitted. I realize this is a great administrative problem but it seems to me, as one who has been accustomed to the determination of truth in the

open court where the parties are represented, that something of that procedure might well be applied to the department of immigration.

I am not well enough versed in the administration of the act to know whether counsel are allowed to appear with an applicant, but I do know in many cases it is difficult for the party involved to determine why a decision has been what it was. Very often if the applicant knew he could answer the objection, and it seems to me that what is in issue in these proceedings is of equal importance to the issues in criminal prosecutions or civil suits involving personal and property rights, and it warrants the same sort of treatment as a Canadian or foreign citizen can get under the judicial process.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what I suggest is that the minister, who is also a lawyer, should look into the possibility of regularizing the procedure in a way in which those parties who come before administration officers for a decision involving their admission to Canada know the basis on which a decision will be taken, have the right to be represented, and the right to know that decision so that the whole matter be dealt with as far as possible in a judicial manner.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nesbitt:

Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the hour is getting late I trust the minister will excuse me if I make my remarks almost in point form in order to save a little time.

First of all, I would like to say that in my dealings with the officers of the department I have always found the minister and his officials most considerate and they have always looked into any matters I have had occasion to inquire about with courtesy and promptness.

On the question of immigration I think we all agree, as many speakers have pointed out, that we must have more people in order to develop our country, create more employment and more markets. But I think the method of obtaining these people might be somewhat altered. I should like to say at the present time that very many fine people have come into this country, and in my own riding we have a great many people from The Netherlands about whom I would like to say that they are just about as fine a type of citizen as we have got from any place.

In regard to the policy of immigration there are one or two suggestions I would like to make. We have heard a great deal during this session and within the last few days about seasonal unemployment in Canada, and this seems to take place mainly

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration during the months of December, January, February, and March. I imagine this suggestion has probably been explored by the department but if not I suggest that the minister look into the possibility of this suggestion. I suggest that immigrants should be brought into this country in months other than December, January, February, and March if at all possible because during these months seasonal unemployment is at its worst and it simply makes it more difficult to absorb these people into jobs.

The next thing about which I should like to make some brief remarks is the matter of the secrecy in which a good deal of the departmental work seems to go on. I fully realize that in matters of screening people that are coming into Canada and the methods that are used to do this naturally must be secret and cannot be open to the public. But in other things I cannot see why this great secrecy must prevail.

As a brief example, may I say that I had a case recently where a lady came over from Germany under an agreement to marry a man, but when she came here she did not marry him. She did not wish to do so and I understand she intimated that she did not wish to do so because she did not think he had sufficient finances; and she was looking for another more affluent husband. That may or may not have been true. Those are the reports that I received. I looked into the matter rather carefully. The department investigated the matter and probably did so much more carefully than I did. I made some inquiries of the department through the deputy minister. I said I should like to find out the results of their investigation. In a letter received from the deputy minister on June 2 last the following paragraph appeared;

You ask that you be permitted to see the reports obtained in this case with reference to the failure to marry. Departmental records are strictly confidential and it is therefore impossible for me to accede to your request.

As I say, in matters of screening for national security I can see that those reports must be confidential. But in matters like this I can see no reason for keeping it in confidence. There is a question in this particular case whether people suitable or not suitable are being brought into this country. I think in those matters, where national security is not at stake, that these reports should be open to people who are interested in the case and in particular to members of the House of Commons.

There is one other remark that I should like to make at this time. I should like to put this in the form of a question to the minister. He may be familiar with the

6818 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration circumstances or he may not.- It is a matter that aroused interest in western Ontario about a year ago or possibly a little longer. There were a great many reports in the newspaper at that time about German immigrants who were on farms, and about a large black car arriving, two or three people getting out and talking to the immigrant and the next day the immigrant had gone, lock, stock and barrel, or perhaps I should say bag and baggage.

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 do not want to interrupt the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but I think I can save him a great deal of time by saying that there was not a black car.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nesbiti:

Possibly it was a green one.

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:

No. Just to settle the matter now, perhaps, and to save my hon. friend time, I might say this. All this difficulty arose because a black car with a Quebec licence, containing two immigrants, brother and uncle of the one in the hon. member's county, visited him on Sunday and he disappeared next day. The disappearance was blamed on this car.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Nesbitt:

I am glad to hear that the minister has looked into the case and has investigated it. I am glad that is the explanation the minister received. However, I have had another explanation presented to me. Briefly it w-as as follows. Perhaps the minister would care to make a comment. I was told this as to a number of German immigrants who, I understand, had their passages assisted by the government on condition that they remain as agricultural labourers until such time as their passage is paid back. A number of them came over in those circumstances. I was told that certain manufacturers in various parts of the country-I understand from the province of Quebec in the textile industry-approached these people and agreed to pay off the amount they owed the government if they would work under a certain contract of labour for a period of time. These immigrants are told that if they break this contract they will be sent home. The purpose of this is that a number of people from Germany who were supposed to be agricultural labourers and really are not, got over here and got into factories where they wished to work and certain manufacturers, I understand, in this way obtained cheaper labour. As I say, I have had this report from two or three sources which I believe to be reliable. I have no factual information. I should like to put it to the minister in the form of a question on which he may wish to comment.

.Mr. Nesbitt.]

The next thing I wish to mention is the matter of citizenship. I should like to make a few brief suggestions on the methods of presenting citizenship certificates at the present time. I fully realize that in the county courts at the present time-at least in some of them; I know it is done in our own county-a local judge makes a nice little speech to these people. If that procedure were followed out all through the country I am sure it would be highly satisfactory. When people who come to this country receive their citizenship certificates, I think the duties and responsibilities of citizenship should be impressed upon them to a little bit greater extent than is done at the present time. I just throw this out as a suggestion. The minister might, once a year, make a tour through -the country and appear at a number of places-or, if owing to his duties he was unable to do so, the chief justice of each province could do something similar-and present the new citizens with their certificates of citizenship and give them a brief address at the time, or possibly a not so brief address, on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship in this country. At the same time possibly a booklet could be issued on the Canadian way of life, and everyman's edition of our constitution and form of government. I think that would be a good suggestion because when these people get their certificates mailed to them, that fact fails to impress upon them the duties of Canadian citizenship. I think that a little bit more solemnity in the matter would probably be of considerable benefit.

I have two further brief remarks to make. The first is on the national gallery. I think the national gallery of Canada is doing a particularly fine job. They have a fine collection of paintings, particularly Canadian paintings. I should like to see more of the money that is spent on paintings spent on Canadian paintings. Among the paintings there is a collection of paintings by one of our first painters, namely Cornelius Kreighoff. The Tom Thomson collection is very good. If it were possible to get more of them, I think it would be better. When people from other countries come to the national gallery here, they want to see evidence of Canadian culture. While the evidence there is very good at the present time, nevertheless I think there should be more. If large sums of money are to be spent on the acquisition of oil paintings, I think at least a large proportion of it should go for Canadian paintings.

The reason I mention this matter is that I recall the acquisition of five paintings by certain European artists for the sum of

$360,000. I know the minister made some remarks about this matter some time ago, I believe at the end of last March. He said that these paintings were purchased for the purpose of illustrating certain periods of certain European schools of art. That maybe all very well and good. But, as I pointed out, these pictures were painted by relatively obscure artists. There were five of them, and they cost a total of $360,000. That works out to about $72,000 apiece.

In this regard I refer to a news item in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Wednesday, May 19 last, which refers to the Toronto art gallery being robbed of a very famous painting. As a matter of fact, it was a world-famous painting called "Elevation of the Cross" by Peter Paul Rubens, who was certainly not an obscure artist. This painting was one of the more famous paintings in the world and it was valued at $30,000. I do not understand how these paintings by relatively obscure artists would be valued at $72,000 apiece. It is something that does not seem reasonable to me. Possibly the minister, when making his remarks, would care to give us a little bit of further information in this regard. I should be interested to know how these paintings were purchased. Was it by a private deal? Was it by public auction? Who did the purchasing and were any commissions paid? I think these matters are of considerable interest.

The last item I should like to mention or to which I should like to make a brief reference is the national film board. I think the work of this board has been very good in the past. Some of the movies, particularly the one "Stratford Adventure", as I believe it was called, is a particularly fine movie and I imagine that not only will it be a fine movie from a cultural point of view but probably it will be a money-maker, as I understand it is likely to be.

I should like to mention a play that has been written by Judge Eric Cross in our county and called "The Patriots".

He was formerly minister of municipal affairs for the province of Ontario, attorney general and also minister of education. He has had wide cultural experience -and has done quite a bit of work in this field. This play, "The Patriots", is about Canada in the period from 1837 to 1848. It deals with the rebellion in Upper and Lower Canada. Robert Baldwin is the central figure and hero of the play. It deals with such famous people as Bishop Strachan, Samuel Lount, William Lyon Mackenzie, Louis Lafontaine and others. I have seen the play and have had some experience in one way and another 83276-432

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in the theatre. I have seen many plays on Broadway not as good as this one written by Judge Eric Cross.

It has already been presented by Queen's University. It is being presented by the London Little Theatre next year, which is the largest little theatre in Canada. It was presented for five days this year by the Woodstock Little Theatre to capacity houses, and I understand that the province of Ontario is considering this play as possible reading for the Ontario schools.

It has been suggested that the play might very well be made into a movie by the national film board. I know there are many technical difficulties but I think the matter should be considered. It is a fine play from a theatrical and historical point of view. I know that Judge Cross spent many months in very careful research. Here we have a fine play, historically accurate, which would be of great educational benefit to the children in our schools. They could see our history in action, and I would strongly urge the minister to refer this matter to the national film board for consideration.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

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

Mr. Knight:

Mr. Chairman, among this storm of criticism I should like to inject a pleasanter note, if my hon. friends to my right will forgive me.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

You will spoil the whole atmosphere.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
CCF

Robert Ross (Roy) Knight

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

Mr. Knight:

I do not think anyone can accuse me particularly of not performing my function of being a critic of the government at times and, indeed, of most of its work. However, I do want to say something which is a rather personal matter because it applies to the minister himself. I am not going to echo the words which would be spoken by the hon. member for Fort William if he were here because he would utter a sort of blanket benediction upon the cabinet minister as such. But I do want to pay him a tribute as a minister and as a man and to thank him personally for the courtesy, care and consideration which he has displayed with respect to any matter having to do with the admission of immigrants or other matters which I have had occasion to take up with him since he took over this portfolio. I do that without reservation but I do reserve of course my right to criticize when I feel it is justified. When I indicated to my hon. friend here that I was going to interject these remarks into this debate he said -that probably the minister would consider that I had been softened up so far as criticism was concerned by the kindly acts. However, that was just in the spirit of fun. I simply want to reiterate what I had intended to say and what I did say when I rose from my seat.

6820 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Harry Oliver White

Progressive Conservative

Mr. White (Middlesex East):

I too want to

say a few words on this question this afternoon. It has been many a day since I have listened to as many worth-while speeches and contributions as I have heard in the debate that has taken place today. I am not going to take very much time. In my opinion the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Kamloops and the Leader of the Opposition presented the views of most Canadians today so far as immigration is concerned. I do want to say something about the question raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West with respect to the treatment that traitors to the cause of freedom have received and also the two cases that the Leader of the Opposition presented. They certainly seem to hurt. I do not think Canadians generally like that attitude and the way things were handled in these instances because on the other hand they see that it is very difficult for deserving people, sometimes relatives of people already in Canada, to get into this country because of one reason-I was going to say excuse-or another.

I know of one particular case. This man was turned down and there were questions asked and answers given. I made some inquiries in the country in which he lived. I had been led to believe by the immigration department that he was ill and not able to work. I found out that he was holding down two jobs in his own country, and when he finally arrived here he made a very good citizen. Maybe he was too good a worker and someone here was afraid that he was going to hold down two jobs. Maybe that is the reason someone did not want him.

I think it was the hon. member for Kootenay West who mentioned the matter of relatives of Canadians whether they be Chinese Canadians or others. It was pointed out that these people are prepared to provide for their relatives if illness should overtake them. I think we are sometimes a little bit sticky about that although I do know that if such people fall ill and have to be hospitalized at the expense of the state the department is criticized because they allowed these people to enter the country. Several members have mentioned the relatives of Chinese Canadians and I will not dwell on that. I think the minister has already made up his mind what he is going to do about that situation. I hope he will deal with it in a Christian, democratic and humane way. I know that he will.

Some mention has been made of the rosy pictures of life in Canada that is given to citizens of other countries. I have a case in hand right at the moment. This man was

coming to this country and was desirous of purchasing a farm. A certain figure was named and he was told that if he had that much money he could establish himself quite easily on a farm in Canada. That amount might have been all right back in the thirties but it was only about one-third of what is needed today. Having come to this country, having severed all his connections in the old country, he now finds having bought a farm that he does not have money for seed, machinery or livestock and that he also has a good-sized mortgage. He is going to be an old man before he gets out of the hole he is now in. Probably that amount of money would have been sufficient in some hinterland location but not in the settled parts of Canada.

I know of a German citizen who was denied access to this country. He looked around in his own land for a position and he now is harbour master of one of the great harbours of Germany. Why should he have been turned down? It was not because of the screening that is done. I have never been able to find out the reason. He was well educated and a very able man. When he was a prisoner of war in this country the farm people he was with thought a great deal of him. After he had returned to Germany and got this job he sent money back to the family with whom he had worked and paid for their trip to Germany and back out of his own pocket. He thought so much of that farm family with whom he worked during the years he was a prisoner of war, he did that for them.

Injustices do seem to occur in the department of citizenship, but at the same time I suppose we in this country have to treat everyone alike. This couple wrote me a letter after becoming Canadian citizens. In writing the letter to me the lady said:

At the age of 17 my husband joined the imperial army and fought in world war I, and then served 9 years in India. Then he came to Canada and years later, at the beginning of the war in 1939, he joined the Canadian army and served in the Canadian army until his discharge at the close of the war. It was not until he decided to visit some friends in the United States, he found out he was not a Canadian citizen.

It was at the last court held in London, Ontario, that he and his wife received their Canadian citizenship. It seems to me a peculiar thing that a man who served the cause in the two world wars would need to go through the process of getting Canadian citizenship.

I want to deal next with the Indian affairs branch. Indian affairs is one of those things for which I suppose there is

not always an answer. I just had the opportunity of talking with the new director and I am very pleased. I think he will do a good job in that department. I realize it is a difficult department, and what you do in one case perhaps does not satisfy in another. I am just going to mention one particular case.

Early in March of this year two brothers who had an interest in a piece of property wrote to the Indian agent indicating that when the estate was settled they would like to purchase the property. The Indian affairs branch did not advise them that it was not for sale, and later they found that the property had been leased to other than an Indian. When I made inquiry it was pointed out to me that the brothers had not indicated they wanted to lease it, but had wanted to buy it. I know very well that if the brothers had been told they could not buy the property but could lease it they would have been glad to lease it. In the meantime the damage had been done and the men are out of that property for another year. Now, these are good people. One of the men is a pattern and dye maker in the city of Detroit, holding down a good position. I do not wonder that they are a little bitter at the administration over the way things are handled.

Throughout my constituency there is a certain amount of uneasiness about the policy of the immigration department. I believe the minister knows that as well as, if not better than I do. It has probably been brought to his attention, and no doubt he will take steps to correct it. Some things have been said during the debate about the minister's department being held off until the last. Well, some department has to be last no matter what happens, and certainly I would not criticize the minister on that account.

I feel that these other matters I have brought to the attention of the minister will be taken care of by him. If he does not, then we will criticize him or his successor at the next session.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

My interest in immigration, Mr. Chairman, ranges over the whole field. There is one topic with which I want to deal today, and that is the long-term trend in so far as policy is concerned. In the past I have been very much interested in the policy of the department of immigration, and I am not sure we have yet a clear answer. I was looking at an article in the Legionary for January, 1953, written by a gentleman named E. H. Gurton called "The Truth about Immigration". In that article Mr. Gurton draws attention to the racial origin of the 83276-432J

26, 1954 6821

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration population of this country at the time of confederation, and the change that has taken place from that day to this. For example, in quoting from the census returns from 1901 to 1951, he shows that in 1901 the people of British origin in this country amounted to 57-03 per cent; French were 30-71 per cent; and others 12-26 per cent. Then, the writer follows it through decade after decade to 1951 where the percentages are as follows: British, 47-89; French, 30-83; others, 21-28, indicating a decline in the people of British origin in this country of approximately 10 per cent.

Then he goes on to attempt to forecast the racial basis of our population at the end of this century, and suggests that if the present immigration policy is continued, at the end of the century the people of British origin in the country will be 32 per cent; French, 30 per cent and others 38 per cent.

I am not going to deal further with that article on this occasion, Mr. Chairman, but I would draw attention to the annual report of the department for the year ended March 31, 1952. I have been looking at the table on page 28 and have made a calculation from it of those people who have come from overseas and I am excluding the section dealing with immigration from the United States of America. Those who have come from overseas who are of British stock, or as they are called here British nationals, are as follows: 1900 to 1909, approximately 60 per cent were of that stock; 1910 to 1919, 64 per cent; 1920 to 1929, 56 per cent; 1930 to 1939, 45 per cent; 1940 to 1949, 60 per cent. Over a period of 50 years, I believe the British nationals, as the report calls them, were more than 50 per cent of the total number of immigrants coming to this country from overseas.

I am not going to debate the question as to what type of people are most desirable in Canada. We are well aware of the great number of races that are represented in this country, and we are well aware of the great contribution members of those various races are making. I raise no objection whatsoever to any racial group within the country. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that there are certain marked differences within our country, and certain changes taking place. But, as I say, we fully understand that most of the rest of the world is represented in Canada at the present time. The table at pages 30 and 31 showing the racial origins of immigrants, and nationalities, for the fiscal year just ended, indicates that other than English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and French, 39 races have been represented in the group of immigrants entering Canada.

6822 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration

However the question raised in my mind is this: What is the long-term policy with regard to immigration. Is there a long-term policy that bears any relationship to the question of racial origin? Or should a policy bear any relationship to the question of racial origin? Those are questions that puzzle me. I notice from the table from which I have just quoted that in this last year for which the department is reporting, the largest racial group entering this country was German, the second largest was Italian, the third largest was Dutch and the fourth largest was Polish.

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 wonder if the hon. member would be completely fair and not class the English as a group, but rather class those from the British Isles as a group.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

Oh, I think the minister is becoming unduly disturbed. I am not attempting to be unfair at all.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink

June 26, 1954