Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):
Mr. Speaker, the other day I rose to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) regarding a Polish applicant who wishes to remain in Canada, having arrived here on a visitor's visa. At that time Mr. Speaker ruled that the question should be discussed at another time. I presume he meant on the adjournment debate as it is called. The adjournment debate allows but seven minutes discussion on the part of the person asking the question and three minutes of reply on behalf of the cabinet.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I am raising this question in respect of an individual by the name of Joseph Gruszka. I knew that if I were to ask a member of the cabinet to explain the phrase "non-discriminatory selection policy" which appears in the white paper on Canadian immigration policy 1966 at page 38 no one would be able to explain the three words "non-discriminatory selection policy" since "non-discriminatory" cancels out "selection" and "selection" cancels out "non-discriminatory. :So a policy of non-discriminatory selection when boiled down means no policy at all. I do not mind there being an immigration policy, for this country, but I do object to people referring to it in praiseworthy terms when it does not justify the adjectives applied to it. We have discrimination in this proposed immigration policy just as we had in the past. In view of that fact, it is beyond my comprehension why we should be given a white paper that says there is no discrimination.
We in this country have been wringing our hands in sorrow because of the statement we have a brain drain to other countries throughout the world. I have said on more than one occasion I do not believe the brain drain is operating against Canada, because we are attracting more brains to Canada than are leaving because of the attractions of other *countries.
DEBATES April 3, 1967
In the case of Joseph Gruszka we are picking the brains of Poland and evidently telling Poland that having picked its brains we do not want the children of the sixth member of the family although we have accepted five members of that family already. Let me advise the house that there is a family by the name of Kawa living right across the street from me in the city of Toronto. There are five members of this family, two brothers and three sisters. Three of them are Canadian citizens, the other two not having lived in Canada long enough to qualify for Canadian citizenship. I understand they intend to apply the moment they have met residence requirements.
A sixth member of the Kawa family remained in Poland. Unfortunately he passed away in Poland, leaving a married daughter, the wife of Joseph Gruszka. He came to Canada last fall to visit his five uncles and aunts, whom we gladly accepted into this country. We show our non-discriminatory selection process by selecting these five members of the Kawa family to live in this country but when the son-in-law of the sixth member of that family, the man who died in Poland, endeavours to join his five uncles and aunts, he is told to get out of the country, and get out fast.
Not only was Mr. Gruszka instructed by the immigration office in Toronto to leave Canada, but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) wrote a letter dated February 28 stating that Mr. Gruszka does not meet our requirements. It is very odd to me that five members of the Kawa family, now living in Toronto, met the immigration requirements, yet this sixth member is told that he cannot meet the requirements. We certainly picked the brains of Poland to the benefit of Canada in this regard and I hope we will stop wringing our hands about the unfair treatment we are receiving as a result of people from Canada emigrating to other countries. We are going out of our way to encourage the best people from other lands to come to Canada. Why do we say to the children of the sixth member of this Kawa family that they are not fit to be with us?
The recent white paper on immigration was flashed before the Liberal party by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and we were supposed to cheer and support it in every way. Apparently these white papers come down from heaven. This white paper includes several references to restrictions, selections, and non-discrimination. However, in
April 3, 1967 COMMONS
the letter dated February 28 from the minister to myself he states in the first page:
If nothing were done, the whole process of preselection of suitable and desirable immigrants would be disrupted.
How can we have pre-selection with nondiscrimination as stated at page 38 of the white paper on immigration, which I have in my hand? Rather than ordering these people out of the country and stating that we have no discrimination, let us be fair and say that if the five uncles and aunts are acceptable, the children of the sixth member of the family are equally acceptable. I outlined in another place the kind of people who live on the street where I live. I have a vice president of an insurance company living alongside of me. We also have living on our street the general manager and vice president of a Canadian branch of an American concern. Next to him lives the owner of one of the biggest tea houses in Canada. Next to him lives a Canadian who owns two or three hotels and next to him lives the widow of the president of one of the great express companies of Canada, and next door lives a doctor. Right across the road from us live these Kawa immigrants.
Does that look as though Mr. Kawa could not look after his nephew, aged 28, who is over here; because if he can afford to move into the territory I have just named, he must be doing all right in this country of his adoption. This white paper talks about the fine people that we are bringing into Canada.