Frederick Davis SHAW

SHAW, Frederick Davis

Personal Data

Party
Social Credit
Constituency
Red Deer (Alberta)
Birth Date
August 4, 1909
Deceased Date
December 9, 1977
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Davis_Shaw
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=f786df30-a001-4982-becb-a5fa8e5551eb&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
teacher

Parliamentary Career

March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
SC
  Red Deer (Alberta)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
SC
  Red Deer (Alberta)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
SC
  Red Deer (Alberta)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
SC
  Red Deer (Alberta)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
SC
  Red Deer (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 233)


January 30, 1958

Mr. Shaw:

-but the report went further and said that even though these former nationals were Canadian citizens they were still subject to military service within that country. In the case of those who are Canadian citizens, regardless of the country from which they came, I think it is the duty of the Canadian government to object vigorously when a man has become a citizen of this country and is still hounded by the government of his former country on the ground that he is subject to military service

in that country. The inference is that if he dares to go back to that country he will pay the penalty as a consequence of not having answered the call.

As I say, I am not too familiar with the situation in the case of those who have not become citizens of Canada but even if their status here is only that of landed immigrants I still think that the Canadian government should raise strenuous objection. Of course, if they come from communist countries I presume any objection would do no good. Nevertheless I think there should be objection in that as well as in all other cases. After all, we do owe some protection to those who have come to our country as landed immigrants and more particularly in the case of those who have acquired Canadian citizenship.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Full View Permalink

January 30, 1958

Mr. Shaw:

May I first make reference to the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver East. Over the years I too have had a number of cases where individuals who have made applications for admission to Canada have been barred on what are generally referred to as security grounds. In all cases, as far as I am aware, there has been a refusal to give any indication of the nature of the charge, and I believe the reason given for this policy is that if the information is given then it will be the responsibility of the department to give the source of the information. If this were to happen then it is expected that the source of information would dry up.

Quite franky I think that is a pretty weak argument. I know of eases where relatives of Canadian citizens have made applications for admission to Canada and have been refused on security grounds. The Canadian relatives have said to me, "This is a reflection upon us. We cannot find out what the reasons were although we have made every effort." I certainly have made efforts myself in many of these cases. These relatives have said that it is a reflection upon them. They cannot find out what the reasons are although they have made every effort, and ip many of these cases I have made efforts myself. I think of one case in particular involving a Greek national who has at least one brother in this country. He made an application and was refused on security grounds.

4042 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Yet I have had in my possession no fewer than a dozen of the finest personal testimonials you could lay your hands on, even one signed by an ambassador from the United States. The application was not only refused but the individual and his relatives were unable to get one single solitary clue as to the reason for rejection.

I think it might not be a bad idea for me to suggest to the minister and his officials that first of all they go back and review every one of these cases. Certainly I think the time has come when we should give consideration to a change in policy. I for one have always said that this is our country and we have a perfect right to say who shall come here. I think we should maintain that right. But certainly I think we should be fair to those who make application for admission, more particularly when at times because of humanitarian or other reasons we drop all barriers and permit people to come here in large numbers, even without adequate medical examination. I am not objecting to that at all. Someone has already referred to the Hungarian situation. It was substantially a humanitarian question and I supported what was done at that time. But I do believe we should change the procedure with respect to the matter I have been discussing.

I wish to refer to a second point, and I am not certain that it falls under the jurisdiction of the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Not very long ago I read a report in a newspaper and when I tried to find it later I could not locate it. That is not an uncommon thing. Sometimes you can search the pages of a newspaper a dozen times and all the time what you want is right in front of your eyes. The essence of the report was that a certain west European government, not a communist government, had declared that their nationals residing in Canada were subject to military service in their home country. Possibly there is not much one can say against that-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Full View Permalink

January 22, 1958

Mr. Shaw:

If the hon. member who made that remark is here long enough he will, perhaps, learn. The hon. member who interjected may have been the same hon. member -I do not know-who has been stirring them up. Mr. Speaker, if I had been answering that question I would say unequivocally that the government has been stirring them up. And one of the major actions which has resulted in their being stirred up is this Bill No. 237. Possibly I, with a few others, may be in a rather unique position as far as this stirring up is concerned-

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.
Full View Permalink

January 22, 1958

Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, obviously one cannot be expected to match the display of vigour of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) and possibly, too, one might not be able to stir up the house to the same extent. Recently a certain Canadian newspaper, referring editorially to the official opposition in this house, that is, to the Liberal opposition, indicated that they had displayed during this present session an excessive fear of an election, and its performance, so that editorial stated, has been pathetic, inept, and in some cases, ridiculous.

I refer to that at this moment because of something which was said by a member of the official opposition this morning. When the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) was speaking, during at least at one

stage of his speech I could hardly believe my ears. It is known, of course, that the hon. gentleman was not speaking for the official opposition, but this is just one more indication that we have of the ineptitude, let us say, of the official opposition; its pathetic weakness not only in connection with consideration of thjs measure but also the ridiculousness of its attitude toward most issues. This morning the hon. member for Meadow Lake said, if I heard him correctly, that he would support this measure-Bill No. 237-in order that it might pass; in order that in turn the Canadian farmer might turn against the government, rise, as it were, in wrathful indignation and smite the government down. To me that is fantastic reasoning. Surely if the hon. member feels as he seemed to feel about the measure he should show that he has the courage of his convictions and oppose it. The position he took this morning was in my opinion in complete contradiction to the position taken by his leader last night when, in reply to a question, the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) indicated that if they were given an issue they would certainly oppose it even if it meant defeating the government. I am almost inclined to believe on the basis of what I have heard not only today but on previous days that if someone in one of the smaller opposition parties, or in the government, were to move a motion indicating that the government itself was not competent, et cetera, the official opposition would squirm out of voting for that motion on some such pretext as those we have heard in recent days.

Speaking in the House of Commons on Friday last, January 17, my colleague the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) said that mass meetings, lobbies and threatened marches had been the result of this legislation-

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.
Full View Permalink

January 22, 1958

Mr. Shaw:

Yes, more than two months. Had the minister himself announced to the house that he would take the initiative in asking that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the committee, we would have been able to say two things, first, that at least he was doing what he advocated when he was a private member of the house and, second, that he was taking the proper course of action. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the bill had been referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization there is every possibility that it would have been given third reading and passed by the house long before this.

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE GUARANTEED PRICES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES, ETC.
Full View Permalink