VISITORS TO CANADA.

Otago Witness, Issue 3804, 8 February 1927, Page 31

VISITORS TO CANADA.

ALLEGED HARSH TREATMENT. AUCKLAND, February 5. Two months ago Mr F. Nancarrow, returning to Auckland by the R.M.S. Niagara, told a remarkable story of apparent harsh treatment by the Canadian immigration officials. Advice has now been received that Mr A. E. Skinner, Canadian immigration officer at Vancouver, emphatically denies the allegations of unfair treatment towards Mr Nancarrow and his family. According to Mr Nancarrow’s story, he and his family were interviewed on arrival at Vancouver by Canadian immigration officials. “We told them we were going through to the United States,” he said. “The officers stated they would see us through, and took charge of our baggage. It was then that we found that we were trapped, for they took us to the immigration detention barracks, and put us under lock and key, absolutely refusing to allow us to cross the border into the United States, although my wife’s father had come from Idaho to take us back with him. The American Consul did his best for us, but we were not given a chance of getting out of barracks.” Detailing his treatment, Mr Nancarrow said that he and his family were kept for five days in barracks, the only food given them being the same .as that handed to the Chinese and Indians —rice and garlic, with a small quantity of steak. The barracks, he said, were dirty and squalid, and* no attempt was made to clean out their quarters. The authorities informed the New Zealanders that they made no provision at the barracks for white people. “From our barracks,” said Mr Nancarrow, “we were returned to the Niagara and were kept under lock and key until the vessel sailed. The captain informed me that this was by order of the Canadian Government. The excuse made by the Canadian authorities was that we were going to settle in Canada, whereas our intention was co cross into the United States. They didn’t want us, and would not let the United States have us.” When Mr Nancarrow’s story, as told at Auckland, was referred to Mr Skinner, the latter emphatically denied all the allegations. “Mr Nancarrow informed me that he was to join his father-in-law at Calgary, but as he did not have sufficient money to pay the fares to that town he was detained at the immigration barracks,” said Mr Skinner. “ Under cross-examination by the Board ot Inquiry, he stated that his father conducted an express business at Calgary’, but later he confessed,” Mr Skinner alleged, “ that this was untrue, and that it was his intention to circumvent the United States quota law by slipping across the American border.” Regarding Mr Nancarrow’s complaints about food and dirty barracks, Mr Skin ner stated that the allegations were ridiculous. Mr Nancarrow’s family, he said, were given separate quarters, with a private bath. The only restriction on their movements was that they were compelled to sleep at the detention shed. During the day they were allowed :o walk at liberty through the city’. Finally Mr Skinner declared that the Board of Inquiry into Mr Nancarrow’s case, after a thorough investigation, rejected the family.