1922-03-29

QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What is the total capital cost of all ships belonging to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine up to and including December 31, 1921?
2.	How many ships are in commission?
3.	What was the net loss on operation of said ships for the year 1921?
4.	What amount is owing the Finance Department or Government of Canada for interest up to and including December 31, 1921?
5.	What amount, if any, has been allowed for depreciation in value of said ships?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	$73,571,842.27.
2.	65.
3.	$2,210,724.55, exclusive of depreciation and interest due Government.
4.	1920,	$1,741,394.27;	1921,	$3,357,-
833.39. Figures computed at 5J per cent on a total capital cost.
5.	In statements prior to 1921, $815,841.32. For the year 1921, at 4 per cent, $2,342,932.19, a total of $3,158,775.51.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: 1.	How many vessels of the Government's Mercantile Marine are now being operated?
2.	What is the average cost per day to the Government of vessels when not operated?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	48.
2.	2,800-ton type costs, $163.12; 3,4003,950-ton type, $226.38; 4,400-ton type, $274.23; 5,100-ton type, $296.08; 8,100-ton type, $422.72; 10,500-ton type, $572.87. All these figures include watchmen's wages, insurance, interest and depreciation. Twc passenger boats on West Indies trade, the Fisher and the Forester, cost $399.56.


JUVENILE DELINQUENTS
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is it the intention of the Government to amend the Criminal Law so as to permit judges of the various criminal courts of the Dominion to send juvenile delinquents to special farms or schools of agriculture or other such institutions instead of sending them to penitentiary?
Hon. Sir 'LOMER GOUIN: The intentions of the Government will be disclosed when legislation to amend the Criminal Code is introduced.


MONUMENTS, HISTORIC SITES
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the placing of monuments upon historic sites? If so, by what department or body in connection with the Government?
2.	Do the tenders call for monuments made of concrete?
3.	Were tenders for these monuments advertised in any way in the province of New Brunswick? If so, how?
4.	Have tenders been awarded? If so, tc whom and at what prices?
5.	Has any consideration been given to the advisability of using granite instead of concrete?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	No tenders have been asked for by the Canadian National Parks Branch, Department of the Interior, for the placing of monuments on historic sites, but tenders have been called for the purpose of getting prices on a suggested monument.
2.	Yes.
3.	No. Tenders were called from firms in Central Canada for the approximate number of monuments required there, the results obtained to serve as a guide in the purchase of monuments for more remote points and in regard to the material to be used in such monuments.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT
Mr. FORKE:: 1.	What is the total amount loaned by the Government to soldier settlers, through the Soldier Settlement Board?
Questions

2.	What amount is at present outstanding in this connection?
3.	What percentage of the payments due on 1921 accounts were paid by December 31 last, in each of the provinces, by soldier settlers who had received loans from the said Board?
4.	What amount was due in each of the provinces on December 31, 1921?
5.	What amount was actually paid in each of the provinces up to December 31, 1921?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1.	$86,958,220 (To February 28, 1922)
2.	Principal	$77,389,170 22
Interest	 2,575,849 66
Total	$79,965,019 88*
* (To February 28, 1922)
3.	British Columbia. .. 21.4 per cent
Alberta	12.3	"Saskatchewan	20.2	"Manitoba	15.0	"Ontario	43.7	"Quebec	15.5	"New Brunswick ..	..24.2	"Nova Scotia	34.6	"Prince Edward Is.	..42.1	"4.	British Columbia. .. $ 794,152 83Alberta	
1,712,794	44Saskatchewan	
1,257,467	38Manitoba	
921,233	87Ontario	
357,744	69Quebec	
137,301	83New Brunswick .. ..	113,718	87Nova Scotia	
84,692	64
Prince Edward Island 51,146 64
Total	$5,430,252	965.	British Columbia..	..	$170,227	26Alberta	
209,561	30Saskatchewan	
253,748	53Manitoba	
138,126	44Ontario	
156,422	21Quebec	
21,354	96New Brunswick ..	..	27,514	20Nova Scotia	
29,336	27Prince Edward Island	21,515	44Total	$1,027,806 61
CUSTOMS RECEIPTS Mr. CHURCH:
1.	What where the total gross receipts from Customs for the years 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922 up to date, for the following places: Toronto, Quebec, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Hamilton?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to erect a Custom House in Toronto this year?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1916-17	1917-18	1918-19	Toronto	
$30,092,168	22	$28,577,316	16	$29,822,946	16Quebec 	
2,403,067	44	1,912,201	29	1,955,300	64Montreal	
34,685,954	83	36,206,928	08	36,457,836	76Winnipeg	
9,464,629	91	11,013,374	65	10,009,204	92Vancouver	
6,261,450	40	7,509,268	35	8,645,196	86Hamilton	
5,724,042	93	6,445,492	99	6,726,071	571919-20	1920-21	1921-22 (11 months)	Toronto	
$38,385,212	32	$35,183,243	02	$21,776,983	68Quebec	
2,610,611	15	4,293,004	32	1,985,942	87Montreal	
47,798,250	16	46,990,948	25	27,405,886	27Winnipeg	
11,538,219	51	10,771,432	33	5,679,142	11Vancouver	
9,140,617	38	9,484,496	45	8,977,750	12Hamilton	
5,874,673	32	6,293,897	10	3,080,330	532.	When expenditure on new works can be resumed, the matter will be considered.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

*Mr. MARCILE (Bagot):: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government during this session to amend the Dominion Elections Act?
2.	If so, will proposed amendments be presented to the House in time for due consideration?


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	It is intended to amend the Dominion Elections Act, and no doubt amendments to the Act will be presented during the present session.
2.	Yes.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The answer to the first question was not such as to indicate whether the Government would introduce amendments or not.

Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think it is probable that the Government will introduce some amendments.



HAMILTON-QUEENSTON HIGHWAY

Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	When was the Hamilton and Queenston Highway taken over by the province of Ontario as a Provincial Highway?
2.	What was the estimated cost of this highway?
3.	What has been the cost to date?
4.	What proportion of the cost is chargeable against the different municipalities through which the road passes?
5.	What proportion is chargeable against the city of St. Catharines?
6.	How much has been paid on account of the construction of this highway out of the Federal grant?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	This department has no information as to the exact date.
2.	The estimated cost given in the project statement to the department, for agreement under the Canada Highways Act, was $613,750, for water-bound macadam construction. The cost of laying a bituminous macadam and cement concrete surface on portions of this highway is estimated at $700,521.50 additional, or a total estimated cost of $1,314,271.50.
3.	The cost for purposes of aid under the Canada Highways Act as audited to Decern, her 31, 1921, was $1,121,661.54.
4.	Forty per centum of the actual necessary and reasonable cost as determined under the provisions of the Canada Highways Act is paid by the Dominion to the province. The balance of the total cost is adjusted under provincial acts, as between the province and the municipalities affected.
5.	This is a matter between the province and the municipality.
6.	$206,132.20.



RAILWAY FINANCES

Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry) :: What surrys have been advanced, or what is the amount of loans guaranteed to the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk or the Grand Trunk Pacific, since the time that such loans or advances were authorized during the last session of Parliament?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Canadian Northern:
Sums advanced	
Bonds guaranteed	
Grand Trunk Railway:
Sums advanced	
Bonds guaranteed	
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway:
Sums advanced (to Receiver) .$ 4,651,341.88
Loans guaranteed	 nil
Guaranteed interest paid by
Dominion	 2,138,335.46
Above as of March 25, 1922.
MESSRS. HANNA and MITCHELL-SALARIES


Mr. TURGEON:: 1.	What was the amount paid in 1921 to iD. B. Hanna for his services as President or in any other capacity in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway Company?
2.	What was the amount paid to A. J. Mitchell in 1921 for his services in different capacities in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway Company?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Salary, $35,000; director's fees, $2,000; total, $37,000.
2.	Salary, $20,000; director's fees, $2,000; total, $22,000.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY-INSURANCE

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: 1.	What amount of insurance is carried on the property of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway Company?
2.	When was it placed?
3.	With what companies was it placed, and in what amounts?
4.	Who were the brokers through whom it was placed?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	As to Canadian Northern Railway Company:	$112,590,338.
As to Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company: $22,822,720.00; effective under General Fire Schedule at February 9, 1922.
As to Canadian Government Railways: No insurance is carried on former Canadian Government railway lines such as the Intercolonial and, latterly, the Transcontinental.
2.	As to Canadian Northern Railway Company:	December 1, 1919, and additions
made since to Schedule of Insurance.
As to Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company: February 9, 1921, for a term of one year, continued on basis of pro rata additional premiums until December 1, 1922, when General Schedule of Canadian Northern railway will also expire.
3.	As to Canadian Northern Railway Company:	Western Assurance Company of
Canada.
As to Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company: Union Assurance Society of London,

25.000.	000.00

25.000.	000.00
Questions

England, 20 per cent; Cornhill Insurance Co., 37 per cent; Lloyd's of London, 43 per cent.
4.	As to Canadian Northern Railway Company:	The Toronto Insurance and Vessel
Agency.
As to Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company: Hare & MacKenzie, Ltd., Montreal.



ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE

Mr. BROWN:: 1.	Who are the leaseholders of the hay lands on the Dominion Government Lands known as the St. Peter's Indian reserve?
2.	When do these leases expire?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to renew said leases?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Messrs. Charles Bird, Jacob Jonasson, Rufus S. Benson, Stephen S. Benson and Rufus Henrickson.
2.	May 1, 1923.
3.	No.



GRASSHOPPER PLAGUE

Mr. GOULD:: 1.	Are there any indications of the return of grasshopper plague in the western provinces this year?
2.	If so, in what sections?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue research work with a view to finding means to counteract the damage caused by (a) grasshoppers; (b) wheat stem saw fly; (c) rust; and (d) cut worm?
4.	Will experiments with chlorine gas be continued as a means of destroying insects injurious to agriculture and to trees?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In Manitoba from evidence at 'hand, we anticipate that grasshoppers will he less in evidence than they were during 1921. In Saskatchewan a further outbreak is expected but the chief outbreak will apparently be in Alberta, in which province there was a heavy egg deposition in 1921, which it is expected will result in an important infestation of hoppers in 1922, particularly in the sections immediately north of the main line of the Canadian Northern railway.
3.	Yes.
4.	No. Previous experiments with chlorine gas indicated that this remedy is too expensive.



CIVIL SERVICE BONUS

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue the present bonus to civil servants?
2.	If not. what reduction will be made, and for what reason?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter of continuing the bonus to civil servants is under consideration at the present time.



CANADA WHEAT BOARD

Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: 1.	Has the Canada Wheat Board been discontinued?
2.	If not, what is the present status of the said Wheat Board?
3.	Have any funds of the said board been transferred to the Federal Government?
4.	If so, what was the amount?
5.	Was the transfer of such funds accompanied by any recommendation as to their use?
6.	If so, what were the recommendations, and what action has been taken or is proposed by the Government, to carry out the recommendations referred to?
7.	Was the total cost of operating the Canada Wheat Board borne by the grain passing through its hands?
8.	If not, what was the actual cost to the Government?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	$560,000.
5.	Yes.
6.	The Canada Wheat Board recommended that the above amount be distributed to the provincial governments pro rata on the basis of the quantity of wheat delivered by producers in each of the said provinces to the board, such moneys to be used for the immediate relief of distressed farmers in the various provinces. So far the Government has not yet decided on the action to be taken in regard to this recommendation.
7.	Yes.
8.	Answered by No. 7.



QUESTION STANDING AS ORDER FOR RETURN

Mr. LANCTOT:: What amount of money has been paid to the Right Honourable C. J. Doherty since the 11th of May, 1855 (a) As judge; (As retired judge; (c) For transportation and other expenses while serving as judge; (d) For indemnity while a member of the House of Commons ; (e) Travelling and other expenses while acting as member of Parliament; (/) As a Minister of the Crown; (g) As travelling and other expenses while acting as a Minister of the Crown; (7i) As travelling and other expenses during his official missions in Europe and the United States; (i) As counsel on the boundary arbitration proceedings between Canada and Newfoundland on the Labrador Coast; and O') As la-wyer and counsel in any other cases given to him by the Canadian Government?

Elections Act



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILLIAM D. EULER (North Waterloo) moved:
. That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that subsection two of section twenty-nine of the Dominion Elections Act be struck from the Act in its entirety.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution, in its purpose, is identical with an amendment to the Dominion Elections Act of 1920, offered by myself in the session of 1920 and again offered in the session of last year. The aim of the amendment, as of the resolution to-day was to prevent the disfranchisement of many thousands of Canadian citizens. On the former occasions, the amendments failed; the government of the day voted them down. And yet they did not fail entirely, because in the session of 1920, after we who are now on this side had pointed out the injustice in connection with the bill as drafted, the Government, recognizing that we were right in part at least, itself brought down an amendment which corrected the wrong in some degree. My resolution proposes to remove the injustice entirely. In 1921 I brought the matter up again in the House, and once more after a year's thought, and reflection, and meditation, on the part of the Government, the latter decided that full justice had not been done, and while my amendment was again voted down, a supporter of the Government brought in another amendment which was carried. I commented at the time on the fact that the then government seemed to be under the impression that justice ought to be done on the instalment plan, and declared my intention to come to Parliament again in the session of 1922 for the final instalment. I did not anticipate that I should present the amendment to a Liberal Government, because we had been assured by the right hon. gentleman who is now leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), as well as by some of his supporters, that we should have no election in 1921. I am not at all disappointed in being able now to present my amendment to a Government which, I hope, will give it a more sympathetic reception than it obtained from those who are now sitting "angularly opposite".
This matter was debated at a very great length in the sessions of 1920 and 1921, and for that reason I do not propose to go into it fully again; but because many [DOT]members of the present Parliament were not in this House in the previous Parliament, I shall as briefly as possible again review the facts in connection with my resolution, for their information, and for the purpose of refreshing the memories of those gentlemen who were members of the House when I brought the matter up before. In the session of 1920, the then Acting Solicitor-General, who is member for South Wellington in this House, (Mr. Guthrie), introduced what is known as the Dominion Elections Act. In introducing the bill he made what I think was conceded by all of us to be a most excellent speech. What appealed to us particularly was his statement that the franchise under that act would rest primarily and largely on the fact that men and women were British subjects, and that from that citizenship would flow the right to exercise the vote. That was in striking contrast with the provisions of the War-time Elections Act, in which only certain women were given the franchise; and I for one was pleased when I heard the minister of that day state that in future there should be no unfair discrimination as to the franchise of Canadian women. We assumed, therefore, that the franchise would be based on Canadian citizenship.
But when the printed bill was placed before the House we found in it a clause which entirely debarred thousands of Canadian citizens from the vote. As the bill then stood it was utterly impossible for probably 100,000 citizens of Canada to exercise the franchise, and it left many others under a heavy disability before they were in a position to vote. That fact was drawn to the attention of the Government, and while there was a disposition, I believe, on the part of some of our political friends to think that the clause had been inserted with the intention of depriving certain Canadian women of their franchise, I have not taken that attitude. At any rate, the Government declared, through the ex-Prime Minister, that this was an error on its part, and an amendment was introduced which partially remedied the evil.
Now, that clause of th e act, in my opinion, still in practice, disfranchises many thousands of people. It is to be found in section 29. The section first recites the general qualifications of a voter. It states that the franchise rests with British subjects who are so by birth or naturalization. They must have resided in Canada for at least twelve months, and two months in the constituency in which they are to vote. These are the general provisions; and then the following clause appears, to which I
Elections Act
[Stage Direction]
would ask the careful attention of hon. members:
For the purposes of this Act, the allegiance or nationality of a person, as it was at the birth of such person, shall be deemed incapable of being changed, or of having been changed, merely by reason or in consequence of marriage or change of allegiance or naturalization of any other person, or otherwise than by personal naturalization of such first mentioned person. Provided, however.-
I would call the attention of the House to this most peculiar provision.
Provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to any person born on the Continent of North America, nor to any person who in person applies to and obtains from any judge having jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings, a certificate under the hand of such judge and the seal, if any, of his court, to the effect following :
I am not going to read the certificate, but in effect it is this, that the judge shall certify that the person who makes application for the certificate has proven to him that he or she is qualified for personal naturalization. He then grants a voting certificate, which must not be confused with the naturalization certificate. The person who makes application is already legally naturalized, but in order to obtain the right to vote she must obtain a voting certificate before her name can be placed on the list. Perhaps this is not very clear to many members, and in order that the significance of that clause may be fully grasped, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Naturalization Act itself. Under the naturalization law there is one outstanding feature that applies to my resolution, and it is this: The wife of a British subject is herself a British subject; in other words, if a woman of foreign birth marries a man who is a British subject, she herself immediately becomes a British subject. If her husband is also of foreign birth and he becomes naturalized, she at the same time automatically becomes naturalized. Moreover, the minor children of such a man become naturalized with him. It follows then that foreign-born women married to foreign-born men who are legally naturalized are just as truly and legally Canadian citizens as are their foreign-born husbands.
Now, if the right to the franchise is based on citizenship, my contention is that the woman who is naturalized legally should have the right to vote just as unrestrictedly as her husband, who also is foreign-born. I stated a moment ago that the bill as originally drafted disfranchised something like 100,000 British

subjects who happened to be born in what are sometimes called the Central Empires [DOT]-Germany and Austria-Hungary. I am not making any particular reference to that except to say that under this clause which I am now discussing even if those women did go to a judge to obtain voting certificates-and, remember, they were British subjects-the judge could not grant them such certificates, for the simple reason that they were not qualified for naturalization, the Naturalization Act at that time absolutely forbidding the naturalization of persons who originally came from the countries with which we were at war. In justice to the then government it must be said that they disclaimed all intention of giving the law that effect, and they brought in an amendment placing those foreign-born women on exactly the same plane as other foreign-born women, making it necessary for them, however, as for others, to obtain this voting certificate before they could vote, although, as I say, they were naturalized British subjects.
The government of the day amended the Dominion Elections Act in the session of 1920. The matter remained in that position until the following session of 1921, when, believing that it was not yet properly settled, I brought it up again in Committee of the Whole and proposed an amendment similar to this one, but it was voted down, and again I proposed it on the third reading of the bill, with the same result. But mark this, the government of the day admitted again that there was an injustice there, and a second time they brought down an amendment that to some extent removed the disability.
But what the House will be particularly interested in now, after hearing that perhaps as a bit of history, is as to the actual present status of foreign-born women in Canada who are legally naturalized. This is the effect of the law: That married women in Canada, if of foreign birth and naturalized as the result of being the wives of British subjects must, before they can vote, apply to a judge for a voting certificate, although they are legally and actually Canadian citizens. I must qualify that statement; there are three exceptions, one most peculiar. The first is that all women who voted in the elections of 1917 are not subject to this peculiar provision, making it necessary for them to secure a voting certificate; then, again, men and women who became naturalized as boys and girls

Elections Act
through the naturalization of the father need not secure the voting certificate; finally, women who were born on the continent of North America are not put to the same necessity.
Now you have the peculiar condition, in connection with the last proviso, that the woman who is born, we will say, in the West Indies-and she may be an uneducated negress-or a person who comes from Mexico or any other part of North America, is given the franchise without restriction if she is married to a British subject; whereas if a woman comes from France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium or any other country than North America, she is obliged to go to a judge to obtain this voting certificate. I say that is an unfair distinction, and I have never to this day heard any justification whatever from members of the former government as to why that provision was drafted.
It has been said in previous debates that these women who are naturalized should not complain of the necessity for appearing before a judge and showing that they are proper persons for naturalization. Well, it means that they are at once placed in a separate and distinct class, and there at once attaches to them at least some doubt as to whether they are as worthy to vote as are their husbands, who also were born in a foreign country and who are not in any way any more Canadian citizens than are their wives. It obliges them to take three distinct steps before they can cast their ballots. In the first place, they must go to the judge, and that may necessitate, as it often does in Western Canada, a journey of perhaps one hundred miles or more, and the judge may after all refuse them a voting certificate; then it necessitates their seeing to it that their names are placed on the voters' list; and, finally, they must go to the poll to deposit their ballots, as of course everyone else must also.
Then there is the natural feeling of pride which rebels at the unnecessary restriction. I know in my own riding women who have lived in this country for thirty, forty and even fifty years, women who are good Canadian citizens, and they resent the necessity of appearing before a judge and showing cause why he should issue to them voting certificates. As a matter of fact they do not go before him, and I am of the opinion-and probably other members can speak with just as full knowledge-that of the women affected by this clause perhaps 75 to 80 per cent are thus virtually disfranchised.
We have both Dominion and provincial laws which do not perhaps in all cases meet with the approval of our citizens, but I do not think we have on our statute book any laws which conflict so directly one with the other as does this particular clause with the Naturalization Act. Our Naturalization Act provides distinctly that the wife of a British subject is herself a British subject; but this clause in the Election Act states that the wife of a British subject is not a British subject when it comes to voting.
Those two laws are absolutely irreconcilable, and if they are irreconcilable, the illogical one ought to give way. If my resolution is accepted that is what will happen, and the franchise will be universal to all Canadian women without restriction, the same as it is to men. We are now in the position of the Indian giver; he gives only in the expectation that it shall be returned to him again. The Naturalization Act gives to these women citizenship and the Dominion Elections Act takes it away. I leave it to the sense of justice of hon. members whether the franchise itself is not the first privilege or right that	ought to	flow out of
citizenship. It is upon that ground that I base my claim that there should be no restrictions whatever placed in the way of a British subject, other than the ordinary restrictions that apply to male citizens, and that they should be given the franchise as a natural result flowing out of the fact of their citizenship. I say, Sir, there is only one proper remedy for that: let us adopt the principle that citizenship in itself confers the franchise. It is the only solution. Why should not a foreign-born woman, legally a Canadian citizen, as unrestrictedly have the right to vote as the foreign-born man, her husband, who is also a Canadian citizen? I have never heard any satisfactory reply to that question. Let us accept finally and frankly the logical consequences of our action in conferring upon women the privileges of naturalization. Now that women have the franchise, there should be no discrimination between froeign-iborn citizens of this country and the wives of those citizens, who are just as fairly and just as legally Canadian citizens as are their husbands. Let us bestow the franchise as freely as
Elections Act
[Stage Direction]
we bestowed citizenship, whether upon men or upon women.
That, Sir, is the intent of my resolution. I hope that it may have the support of my friends on this side of the House. I believe it will have the support of the Progressive members; I know it will of some of them. I hope that the leader of the official Opposition will see his way clear to assist now in granting that final instalment of justice to women-a right that should never have been withheld.
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has been very consistent during the past three sessions of Parliament and very assiduous in pressing upon the House the view which he has just expressed. I have no objection to offer to the manner in which he has presented the question historically upon the present occasion. It is just possible that the reasons which existed two or three years ago were more pointed in those days in support of legislation such as that mentioned by my hon. friend and such as that to be found in section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act, than they are to-day. But I submit that when the act was passed in 1920 there was real, substantial ground for the enactment. The object of that section of the statute was to place the male voter and the female voter upon the same plane and to surround each with the same conditions in respect to the franchise. The naturalized male subject was entitled under the Franchise Act to vote, but before being-naturalized he had to meet the requirements of our naturalization law. Under the Naturalization Act, a woman married to a naturalized British subject became by operation of law a British subject, but no examination was required of her. There was a discrimination, apparently, as between the male and female voter at that time, and the object was to surround the right to use the Canadian franchise with every reasonable precaution. We had done so in regard to men who became naturalized, and we desired to do the same thing in regard to female voters.
My hon. friend, I think, confounds two entirely different things, namely, citizenship on the one hand, and the right to exercise the franchise on the other. There are thousands-yes, tens of thousands-of British subjects in this country who cannot vote. The judges of our country cannot vote. There are a number of requirements in addition to British citizenship which must be fulfilled in order that a man may
TMr. Euler.]
be entitled to vote. The fact that a man is a British subject does not necessarily confer on him a vote. Until recently, indeed a property qualification was necessary in some of our provinces. I do not know that it is necessary now, but the mere fact that a man is a British subject has never been taken as tantamount to saying he is a voter. We in our wisdom in this Parliament did say that the chief' qualification in regard to the franchise should be British citizenship. In 1920, when this law was enacted, there is no doubt that there was considerable unrest in Canada; various sets of opinion prevailed throughout the country. With regard to male voters who were not British subjects by birth, we had insisted on safeguards before they attained naturalization; we did not so insist in regard to women voters. When section 29 was placed in our election law it was merely an attempt on the part of Parliament to safeguard the right to the franchise in the case of women just as we had done in the case of men.
Now, we did make exceptions. We made an exception in regard to women who were born on the North American continent. Was not that a reasonable exception? The woman of the United States who became the wife of a Canadian citizen, should not, I think-on a superficial glance at the case, at all events-have been required to undergo the same critical examination as that applying to women coming from, say, Central Europe. Living conditions in the United States; the mode of government in the United States; the practice and enforcement of law in that country, and the language of its citizens-these are all similar to what we enjoy in this country. A woman born and living in the United States until her marriage would be brought up under conditions almost identical with those which a woman would enjoy in Canada. She would be presumed to know the institutions of this country as she would know those of her own. But not so with the citizens of Central Europe; many of them knew nothing of Canada, of our laws, of our language, or of our institutions. A man, in order to gain naturalization, had to appear before a judge and be able to pass a fairly critical examination, but the woman from Central Europe could marry the naturalized British subject and, without any examination or the imposition of any conditions whatever, would become a British subject and be entitled to vote merely by reason of her marriage, simply by operation of law. It was to guard against that condition of affairs that section 29 was placed in the statute of 1920.

Elections Act
It was pointed out in the following session that a difficulty would arise in the case of women who had voted previously in the Dominion of Canada and that a number of them might be deprived of the franchise in the ensuing general election. As soon as that was brought to the attention of Parliament at the last session, the difficulty was remedied, as the member for North Waterloo has pointed out. But the reason for the legislation is the reason which I have sought to give to the House. As another year has now elapsed, there may not be quite as much reason for this restriction as there was two or three years ago. It may be that as time goes on there will be less reason for it. But in my humble judgment the restriction then adopted was a reasonable and proper one, and it met with the approval of the House of Commons at that time.
Now, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) intimated to the House this afternoon that the Government will in all probability bring down during the present session some amendments to the Elections Act. I have no doubt that at every session for a number of years it will be found expedient to amend that act, and I would like to see what amendments the Government proposes before definitely passing on a motion such as the one we have before us at the present time. I cannot say that I have any very strong opinion upon this question myself, but others may differ from me. I do not believe that the law in its working out created any injustice to any considerable portion of the foi'eign-born women. I know that it has been charged that in some places it was difficult to obtain certificates, but I think that any woman with any reasonable degree of effort could in the long time which intervened before the general election have obtained a certificate entitling her to vote if she so desired. The law was passed in 1920, and amended in 1921, and the election was held on the Gth of December last, so there were months and months and months during which the certificates might have been obtained from any judge having jurisdiction in the Dominion of Canada. I do not think any great injury arose by reason of the enactment. However, as I say, it is a fair matter for consideration now, and I think my hon. friend from North Waterloo might well consider letting his motion stand until we see just what amendments the Government proposes to bring down in regard to this question. Personally, I have no very strong opinion about it.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, if I were of a vindictive disposition I would be willing to concur in the view expressed by the former Solicitor-General (Mr. Guthrie) and allow the law as it stands at present to remain on the statute books until another general election. But in view of the fact that I come of a race which likes to practise charity to all, I think it is only just, now that we are placed in the seats of the mighty, that we should try to even up matters and give those gentlemen opposite a reasonable run for their money when the next general election takes place.
I want to tell my friends on the opposite side that if I received a majority of something like seven or eight thousand in my division in the last election, it was largely due to this section 29 of the Elections Act which is now up for discussion. I had in my division something like five or six thousand foreign-born women. It was expected by the government that a large number of them would be prohibited from voting under this peculiar section 29, but I saw to it that every one of them was naturalized, and I venture to say that ninety-nine out of every hundred who were naturalized voted against the government which put upon the statute books this miserable and nefarious section. It is only natural that it should be so. I do not mind admitting frankly here that I sedulously circulated the fact that the reason why these women were standing in queues of thirty and forty and fifty in front of the judge's room, and in front of the court house before it was opened, in below zero weather, was that the government insisted that they should be put upon a plane different from that of their sisters born in Mexico, Guatemala, Hayti, Honduras and other portions of Central America.
The former Solicitor General tells us that the reasons at present are not so pointed as they were in 1920 when this law was put upon the statute books. I agree with him that the reasons are not so pointed now. Before 1920, when the reasons were pointed, these gentlemen were obliged within a very few months of that time to take the political jump, and that is the reason why they proposed by this act to disfranchise a large number of the people whom they thought and rightly so were going to vote against them. But even if this law had not been put into force, I believe these women would have voted against the government for their other sins of omission and commission during their four or five years of power.
Elections Act

I must congratulate the former Solicitor General upon his consistency. He took the ground some years ago that the amendment we proposed was inimical to the interests of the country, and he still thinks that, although he believes the reasons are not now as pointed as they were then. He has suffered a great deal within the past few months, and one would imagine that suffering and tribulation would cause him to think of the sins he committed in the past, but like the person about whom the poet wrote his "head is bloody, but unbowed". He is very much like the ancient Bourbon dynasty, who never learnt and never forgot. I think we ought to be under a debt of gratitude to the Government for having acquired for us this very large body of women voters in December, 1921. It has been said, and I agree with the statement, that "the female of the species is more deadly than the male." The government learnt that to their sorrow on the 6th of December last. When this question came up in 1919 and 1920 my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and myself were voices in the wilderness in the matter of pleading for the enfranchisement of women, and I remember my good friend the ex-Solicitor General telling us that the reason why these foreign-born women were put on an inferior plane, and a plane different from that of women born on this continent, was because the standard of living and morality among women born in Europe was somewhat different from the standard on this continent. He tried to circulate the myth that these foreign-born women all came from alien-enemy countries, and I suppose that nine out of every ten people who read the newspapers were of the opinion that this section in the act was merely intended to prevent German and Austrian women from exercising the franchise. The public mind had not cooled off at that time to the extent it has now and the feeling was that perhaps such women should not be permitted to settle the fate of the government in power. My hon. friend should have created the impression that the law applied to every class of women born in Europe, to French women, Belgian women, Italian women, and people of that kind, all of whom showed what they were capable of doing during the war. Every foreign-born woman from Europe was disfranchised by this act for the reason given by the former Solicitor General, that their standard of living and morality was different 
from that of the women born on this continent. I want to say that standards of living and morality are not governed by the country in which a person lives, but by something entirely different, and when we took the ground that all women should have the right	to vote if British
subjects, that applied to every class and character of women, no matter from	what country she hailed.
If they were British subjects by the fact of their husband's naturalization, and had all the rights and privileges of British subjects as such, they ought to have had the right of voting, which is one of the most important and essential rights given to British subjects in this country. We now have fallen on more pleasant days; I think that even our friends among the official Opposition will soon look at things in a very different light from that which they do now -I hope they will at any rate. But whether they do or not, my hon. friend from North Waterloo and myself will still continue to agitate for the repeal of this obnoxious law; and even if a measure of that kind is introduced into this House and fails to obtain the necessary majority in the other Chamber we will continue until this right is obtained for these women no matter from what country they come.
I would like my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) to note-it may be a matter of sorrow to him-that the former Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the old government, Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, owes his defeat very largely to the fact that this section of the law was engrafted on our Franchise Act. Mr. Ballantyne has publicly declared on many occasions that the women in the district in which he lived, the foreign born women, voted against him. How could he expect otherwise? One would almost have imagined that the late government wishing to rid themselves of the former Minister of Marine and Fisheries and throw him overboard-if I may so use the expression-just tacked on this provision in order that he might be left behind. I think I ought to state that perhaps there were other and sufficing reasons why 'he was left behind. Still it may be, as I say, of interest to the hon. gentleman to know that practically every woman of foreign birth in the St. Lawrence-St. George division-and there were about three thousand of them-voted cn masse for the present member of that constituency (Mr. Marler) to show their detestation of the government which could stoop to such methods as the last government did in order to disfranchise them.

Elections Act
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker: I think that what women really want to-day is perfect equality with men, and therefore if the striking out of section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act in its entirety does not confer upon women perfectly and entirely equal rights with men, then, I think, it is not going far enough. To me it would seem that if a woman were herself a naturalized Canadian it would not matter whom she married, or whether she was married at all, because she would still be permanently a Canadian, a naturalized Canadian. On the other hand, if she were not a naturalized Canadian herself, it would not matter whom she married, or whether she was mar. ried or not-she would not be a Canadian citizen. If that is not true then women must simply be deemed to be part of the goods and chattels of man-she is not an individual at all. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) say that women from the United States were much more eligible to become Canadians than women from Europe; I was not aware that the party to which he belongs was so friendly to the people of the United States.
I think that in the very few remarks I have made I have voiced the opinion of Canadian women. I think women just want to be individuals, as men are individuals-no more and no less. And so I would like to see that principle embodied in the law, rather than that a woman should be made a citizen by marriage to a man who was himself a citizen.


Arthur Meighen: I shall not allow the taunts of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) to deter me from discussing this question in, I hope, a fair manner, and, as I have some aspiration also, in an illuminating way, I cannot say that his remarks have added anything to the understanding of anybody as to either the legislation itself, its origin, its purpose, or its effect. The only impression my hon. friend made on me was this: If such was the character of the
4 p.m. discussion of a law he thought fit to offer this Parliament, what must have been the character of the representations he made regarding it before the electorate of his constituency. The hon. member says he was elected by the votes of five or six thousand of those whom he calls foreign women. Well, I can imagine five or six thousand women-perhaps not
speaking either of the two languages of our country and recently come to the city of Montreal-getting a most remarkable view of the law of Canada if they had to sit at the feet of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier. I can imagine how prejudice would permeate his hearers just to the extent of his political activities.
There is undoubtedly in the law as it stands to-day a distinction between British subjects in the matter of the conferring upon them of the franchise-of that there is no question at all. Pass the motion of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), bring in a bill and make it law, and there will still be a distinction between the rights to the franchise on the part of British subjects in this country, and a very great distinction and discrimination; and, I venture to say, this session will close without that discrimination being removed by hon. members opposite.
What is the discrimination we are treating of now? It is a discrimination which puts an additional burden on a certain class of women-on a class of women who have acquired naturalization by methods that have always been recognized, in this and every other country, as perfectly sufficient, which because of the relationship between man and woman as arising from marriage has always been recognized as perfectly sufficient, but which does not put the same restraints, qualifications and conditions around citizenship in the case of the woman as it puts in the case of a man. A man coming from another country to this Dominion in order to secure citizenship by the law of our land-and in principle our law in this respect conforms with the law of every other country in the world-that man must show not only that he is a resi-. dent here, but he must show that he has done certain things entitling him to have placed upon him the imprimatur of citizenship. He must, for example, now show that he has lived in our country for five years; he must show certain qualifications of citizenship; he must take a certain oath. He must show, as well, as I am informed by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) , that he is able to converse in either of the two great languages of our country. Having done all these things, all men are treated alike and they are admitted to the citizenship of this Dominion. In the admission to citizenship, there is not equality. Let me repeat that sentence because it is at the bottom of this whole difficulty; it is at the bottom of the
Elections Act

question that we are discussing now; it is the very heart of it. There is not equality in the admission to citizenship. Were there equality in the admission to citizenship, there would he no reason in the world for inequality in the admission to suffrage. The man must undergo examination; he must live up to those tests. But not so with the woman. The women come to this country, perhaps from Central Europe, but, at all events, from a country in which a different language from our own is spoken, a country in which the people live under different customs. No one is saying anything about their living under different moral conditions or anything about moral customs. Those were only words put by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier into the mouth of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), indicating, no doubt, the practices that the former indulged in during the election. Our contention is that, perhaps, the woman conies from a country in which the people live under conditions which would justify the presumption that she would know little of our institutions, of the obligations of our citizenship; in a word, from a country in which there would be no presumption that she was fitted to be admitted to all the rights of citizenship in our country. But she comes to Canada. Possibly within the first week in which she arrives in this country, the first day, for there are many such cases; or the first year, she marries a naturalized subject; perhaps she marries a citizen by birth. Let us take the case where she marries a naturalized subject- it does not matter which case we take- that moment she is a British citizen; that moment she is a Canadian citizen, and she has reached that status without having met any of the tests whatever which this country has placed around the admittance to that status of naturalization, and without having shown any qualification of any character whatsoever for citizenship.


Samuel William Jacobs: If she came from Mexico, what would be the situation?


Arthur Meighen: We will come to that in a minute. They do not come from Mexico. The assumptions of the hon. gentleman are just about as far-fetched as his arguments and, indeed, his assertions of fact. I wonder how many of the five or six thousand who put the hon. gentleman in this House were from Mexico.


Samuel William Jacobs: 'They were intelligent
enough to vote against the right hon. gentleman and his government.


Arthur Meighen: The further away they came from, the less they would be likely to know, and the more likely they would be to vote for the hon. gentleman. I am endeavouring to make clear to the House the reasons for the distinction. I am not particularly concerned as to what weight those reasons are given; but I am concerned that the reasons which actuated myself and those with whom I work, shall be known and shall be in a position to be weighed and given such weight as hon. gentlemen ought to give them. I have explained the distinction that has always existed in this country, as everywhere, in the admission to citizenship. Can any hon. gentleman tell me a reason why there should be discrimination in the qualifications for citizenship and no discrimination in the qualifications for suffrage?


Mr. EULER:: Is the right hon. gentleman not aware that that discrimination which now exists in the granting of citizenship to man and woman respectively is because of the action of the government of which he was a member, in removing from the Naturalization Act of 1919 the right which married women had to become naturalized? That is a fact.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
has missed the point altogether. That difference has existed all the time in this country; it exists in every country. Does the hon. gentleman know a country in the world where a woman, upon marriage, does not become of the citizenship of the man?


William Daum Euler: I am saying that by the
Act of 1919, when a new naturalization law was passed, the married women of this country had a right to obtain personal naturalization, and that the government of 1920 dropped that clause from the amended act.


Arthur Meighen: That matter is not pertinent at all, but I do not think the hon. gentleman is right in fact. I have asked the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and his opinion is the same as mine. It may be that we should have a law which would prevent women from becoming citizens except by process of naturalization.


William Daum Euler: We had it.

Elections Act


Arthur Meighen: Never. Never was
there an hour in the history of this country when a woman did not become a naturalized citizen by reason of marriage.


William Daum Euler: I am not saying that. She had, as a married woman, a right to personal naturalization which she does not have now.


Arthur Meighen: Very good. Admitting that the hon. gentleman is right; that a woman could have become naturalized by process, the same as a man, even though she were constructively naturalized by marriage, even so the fact remains that the woman always did become naturalized by marriage, and the man never became naturalized by marriage. He had to undergo all those tests, to live up to all those requirements, whereas, the woman did not have to do that at all.


William Daum Euler: You removed it.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman from his seat state that that distinction has not always existed, that a woman has always been admitted to citizenship by marriage and that a man never has?


William Daum Euler: That is not the point.


Arthur Meighen: That is my only point. If the hon. gentleman really wants to dispute that point, I should be glad to have him rise. That distinction has always existed. It may be a wrong distinction-I am not arguing that at all. What the hon. gentleman says is that, although a woman always became naturalized by marriage, we in 1919 took away a method by which she could otherwise become naturalized. Assume that he is right and that that method was taken away in 1919-from memory, I express the opinion that he is wrong-the woman did not need to become naturalized by that method; she could become naturalized by marriage and in no other way. She does not need to take the other process, the hon. gentleman says, but by becoming naturalized, and by that fact alone, she should be admitted to the suffrage. What I am seeking to impress upon the House is that there has been inequality in the admission to the status of citizenship all through the history of this Dominion, of the British Empire and of every other civilized country under the sun.
Then we came to that stage in the development of our nation when it was thought wise to admit women to the right of suffrage. This situation at once presented 31
itself, that men, admitted to the right of suffrage because of citizenship, had around them those safeguards, but women admitted to the right of suffrage, merely because of citizenship, in all those cases had around them no safeguards at all. Consequently if the mere admission to the status of citizenship in itself gave the right of suffrage, then necessarily there would be inequality, then necessarily, in the case of women, there would be an absence of those safeguards that have been thought wise in the case of men. Let me ask this question again, for after all, reason in these matters is infinitely better than passion, than taunt and quip. Does anyone know of any reason why there should be distinction in admission to citizenship and no distinction in admission to the right of suffrage? Does anyone know why, if we should admit to the right of suffrage merely on the unequal basis of citizenship, we should not go back and so alter the law that all would be admitted to citizenship exactly on an equal basis? If hon. gentlemen can answer that, I will admit that they have at least reached the point which they have never reached before in a discussion of this question. Will hon. gentlemen from their places state that citizenship is something in respect of which all sexes, all races, should be treated precisely alike? The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier shakes his head indicating a negative. Is that not strange, coming from him who has just sat down with that speech in favour of unlimited equality on his lips? If hon. gentlemen will take the stand that they propose to legislate in this Parliament that admission to the status of citizenship shall be the same for man as for woman, then all right, this question is solved, and they are in a strong position when they say that admission to the right of suffrage should be the same for both man and woman. Place the first on an equal basis and the second follows automatically; leave the first on an unequal basis and then, if the second follows automatically, it is not equality at all but inequality. Now, it was with the view of removing that inequality, which arose out of the inequality in the elevation to the status of citizenship, and of doing so with the least possible infringement or impairment of right of suffrage consistent with the safety of the suffrage itself, that that amendment was introduced. I know, speaking on purely theoretical grounds, that there is a discrimination in it, in our endeavouring to



Elections Act
have it apply only to those cases where you could not possibly argue against its application. We did eliminate all the women born in the North American continent, which in effect meant the women born in the United States.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why did you not say so?


Arthur Meighen: It is better legislation, and my hon. friend knows it just as well as I do, not to mention countries in any act. We mentioned the district and got the desired result. I know that the theoretical argument can be advanced, that these women, who are admitted to the right of citizenship by marriage, are foreigners just the same as the women of Central Europe. That is true. But they were born under institutions and conditions, and brought up to a character of citizenship, very much akin to our own. Consequently we felt, in our desire to make the restriction just the least that it could possibly be made, that we could safely eliminate those women; and we felt as well that, as respects those women whose very near relatives had fought for us in the war, there was no cause for restriction. That is why we brought in the amendment.


Samuel William Jacobs: What about France?


Arthur Meighen: It was felt to be part of wisdom not to name countries; but if hon. gentlemen want to get down to these fine points, they know as well as we do that we really have no immigration from France. The immigration that we have is, as a matter of practical fact, from Central Europe. That is the immigration of nonEnglish speaking people, who certainly cannot be presumed, upon one week's or one month's residence in this country, to be of that character and qualification which this Parliament, as all Parliaments, has felt to be necessary in granting the status of citizenship. That was the object we sought by the legislation. Now, we did not disfranchise any one, in the first place. The statute itself admits the women to the franchise. That was the first admission, and this is a restriction placed upon it for the reasons I have given. And hon. gentlemen are free to attach to those reasons just what weight they think fit. I gave them because they were sincere reasons that actuated the Government, reasons that were strong then and are strong to-day. But we did not make the restriction absolute. We said this: As regards those women who have been naturalized by act of marriage, or, as it is sometimes
 *
put, constructively naturalized, those who have not undergone any test at all, all we ask is that they shall do what the men had to do, namely, go before a court and show that, if they had not been naturalized by marriage at all, they could qualify anyway. We asked that they should prove just what the men had to prove, and then the franchise would become theirs. Is that autocratic legislation? Is such a woman put under any hardship in being required to do precisely what the man had to do in order to attain the same goal she is seeking to reach? There is no hardship whatever. Hon. gentlemen say that they did not go. I do not know whether they did or not. I do not know of any reason why they should not, any more than the men, to attain the same ends, go and get their qualification established under the imprimatur of the court itself.
If hon. gentlemen have a simpler way to suggest by which this qualification can be established-and it is undoubtedly a sane and reasonable qualification-then I shall be only too happy to accept the simpler method, so long as there are fair safeguards. I do not even use the word "fair", but I say the same safeguards that heretofore have always existed in the case of men. If there is any foundation in the world for the attitude of mind-for that is about the best, or at least the most dignified expression I can use, and I do not refer in these words to the hon. member for North Waterloo, who did fairly argue the question-if there is any foundation for the attitude of mind displayed by those who make speeches of the character delivered by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier, the best that can be said in respect of them is that they have determined that absolute equality of suffrage shall prevail. I defy hon. gentlemen opposite, nay, I do not defy them, I invite them, to consider the question of absolute equality of suffrage. It will be before them for consideration. They are now the responsible government, and they will have the question to face. If they are going to take this action and decide upon absolute equality of suffrage, then it will carry them to lengths which perhaps they do not contemplate just now. There is no absolute equality in suffrage to-day, aside altogether from this question. I did not hear the hon. member for North Waterloo make a plea for it, though possibly he might; but I have an idea that there are some hon. gentlemen opposite who would not. Those people coming from the oriental coun-

Elections Act
tries into the Dominion to-day cannot, under the law, vote in federal elections, at least in certain of the provinces of Canada. Is it the intention of hon. gentlemen opposite now to be logical in their position and to admit to the franchise those people from oriental countries who are citizens of this Dominion, citizens of the Empire and of Canada, under the new Naturalization Act? Is it their intention to admit them to the federal suffrage?


Samuel William Jacobs: You are sidestepping the question.


Arthur Meighen: Are you thinking of sidestepping already? If the attitude of mind being reflected now has any basis of reason at all, it has this basis, that citizenship means suffrage and that there shall be no distinction of races or of sexes. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to say that he will stand in this House and vote for that?


Samuel William Jacobs: Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


Arthur Meighen: "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof";-again indications come, first here and then there, that hon. gentlemen opposite are not prepared to accept the consequences of their position at all.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the right hon. member say that the Chinese inhabitants, the orientals, are not allowed to vote now?


Arthur Meighen: I said, in certain provinces of the Dominion under the federal law to-day-the law which the hon. gentleman wants amended-citizens of Canada who are orientals by birth cannot vote.


William F. Carroll: That is federal?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. In that respect the federal law follows the provincial franchise; and the, provincial franchise, mark you, is the franchise of governments controlled by the Liberal party. Let them carry the fiery cross and preach this doctrine of equality in British Columbia, yes, and elsewhere in western Canada, and then we shall find how sincere they are in trying to impress upon the House the inconsistency and autocracy of hon. gentlemen in this corner of the Chamber. No! We were not moved by any anxiety to discriminate against anybody at all, save to the extent that discrimination and care have always throughout the history of our country been considered necessary, in the case of men, in connection with the
31i
franchise. I was one of the members of the Government that admitted the women to the franchise, and that against the Opposition of some hon. gentlemen who sit right opposite us now, some of whom, even in the late contest, denounced that Government for having granted the women the franchise. One hon. gentleman among them, a distinguished member, denounced the late government for their women suffrage legislation because he said it admitted bad women to just the same status as good women. Was there any distinction and discrimination there? We admitted women to the franchise, and the admission was wide and sweeping. Herein is the only restriction. And that restriction was not invented by ourselves; it could be overcome by the woman herself, if she were qualified to do so, by going before a judge and getting a certificate. It is an admission to the franchise the same as applied to men historically in this Dominion.


Mr. MARTELL:: Do I understand my right hon. friend to say that his Government was the first to admit women to the franchise in Canad'a?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member may have understood me to say so, but I never used the word "first." We were the first in the history of the Dominion.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But in Nova Scotia we admitted women to the franchise on an equality with men long before the Dominion franchise was extended to women.


Arthur Meighen: That may be. I do not know about the province of Nova Scotia; but I do know this, that the hon. gentleman has quite a number of colleagues around him who sought votes, and no doubt got them, by denouncing us for admitting women to the franchise.
Now then, I repeat, that we felt we had limited this safeguard to the narrowest limitation possible, and that instead of discriminating against women in favour of men, or discriminating against any class of women in favour of any class of men, it went as nearly as you can go by legislation to put them on an effective equality in consideration of the fact that with respect to admission to citizenship they were not on an equality at all.


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brume) :: Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed perhaps to bring back the debate from wandering into British Columbia and the Orient to a consider-
Elections Act

ation, I trust calm and impartial, of the resolution before the House. The leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has stated that there is in effect a difference between the naturalization of men and women. He states that we have gone in this country, as they have in most other civilized countries, 'along the lines of the proposition expressed so well in the old French adage: "Qui prend mari prend patrie"-who takes a husband takes the husband's fatherland. He states that that discriminates in favour of the woman, because the man who comes before the tribunal to get naturalization must undergo the prescribed examination; the woman gets it by the mere fact of marriage and is put really in a more favourable position. Well, the gallantry which should distinguish a House now led by the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mackenzie King) and which was led by the right hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) should'accept that position with pleasure.
But here is wherein, it seems to me, consists the fallacy-and I put it with all respect-of the right hon. member who leads the official' Opposition. He says: We allow this constructive naturalization to take place with safety in regard to people that come from the North American continent; but it would not be safe to allow it in regard to people who come from Europe, whether they come from Central Europe or from France or Italy. Now, with all respect to him I say that it is a perfectly absurd distinction that there is any danger to Canadian people in the fact that the woman who has come from Italy and who has married a Canadian citizen should have the advantage of constructive naturalization; while it would be perfectly safe to allow it to her sister or cousin or aunt if she came from the state of Massachusetts. What was the idea? The idea was not to disfranchise, but to make the voting a little more difficult among those classes of the Community that the then government thought were going to vote against them. I am sorry to have to say it, but that was the real foundation cause for the legislation.
But let me speak for one moment about another point raised by the right hon. member as the result of an interjection by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), whose careful and impartial treatment of the subject, without heat and passion, I am sure has commended itself to the judgment of all hon. members. It is quite possible to take the view of the hon.

member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) that women are individuals on an equality with men, and that therefore if a woman who is a foreign-born citizen marries a British subject she should not become a British subject but should remain an individual entitled to the benefits and subject to the disabilities of her birth. That is an understandable situation, but that situation was varied when in the session of 1920 the right that a married woman had to apply for personal naturalization was taken from her. That right was taken away by the legislation of 1920.


Arthur Meighen: Of 1920?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Of 1919. In 1919 we
had a naturalization law whereby a married woman had a right to be personally naturalized and receive her naturalization certificate; but that was taken away by the legislation which was passed, I think, in the same year. So the only way in which a woman born out of the British Dominions and married here could get naturalization was through the naturalization of her husband.


Arthur Meighen: I am sending for the statute, but I really cannot follow the hon. gentleman's reasoning. Does he say that prior to 1919 a woman naturalized by marriage could become naturalized again?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No. As I understand, the law was that a woman born outside the British Dominions and married in Canada could apply for naturalization in her own right supposing her husband did not want to become naturalized.


Arthur Meighen: Not if she were naturalized already by marriage.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I suppose she could not be naturalized twice.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly; that is the whole point.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, this is the point. I am dealing with the proposition submitted by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, which is to this effect: That it would be a proper thing if the law of this country did not recognize that old French adage of, "Qui prend mari prend patrie,"-if women stood on their own feet, so to speak, quo ad naturalization. I say that is an understandable position to take; but I say further that the right of a woman married to a foreigner in this country to obtain British naturalization for herself was taken away by legislation passed in 1919, and

Elections Act
women of this class were driven back to what I might call constructive naturalization through the naturalization of their husbands. I, say there never was any just reason why a woman who was born on the North American continent should be put in a position of superiority over one born elsewhere. Once you allow marriage to a British subject to open the door to the franchise, that door should be opened to any woman no matter in what part of the world she was born. That is my point; that is where I say the unfairness comes in.


Mr. STEVENS:: Will my hon. friend permit me a question? Would he favour then, under those circumstances, extending the franchise to a woman who entered Canada, married, we will say, to put the extreme case, the day after she arrived, and who would if given the franchise vote within the week?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, I would, because the number of cases where that would happen would be so infinitesimal as not to affect the general principle. As a matter of fact, if a woman comes in from the United States to-day that is precisely what she can do. But if she comes from France; if she is the mother of a hero who has gone from Canada to France to fight the battle of the Allies-and I know personally of such cases-she would be debarred from voting unless she went before a judge and was able to satisfy him that she had lived in Canada for five years before the election. I do think that when the leader of the official Opposition casts aside that somewhat worn attitude of mind he sometimes adopts; when he sits down as a lawyer and not as a leader trying to encourage his decimated ranks, he will agree with me.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle) :: May I ask a question? I do not know that I have interpreted the Act correctly, but in the practical working out of the clause to which the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has referred-that is, the placing of American women in a different class from that applying to those coming from Europe-it would appear to me that an anomaly has arisen. Now, my view on this point has been disputed so often that I am quite prepared to discover that my interpretation is wrong. But this is as it appears to me: A woman who comes from the United States, becomes naturalized in her own right, and then marries a foreigner, is not allowed to vote; and a woman coming from Europe, becoming
naturalized in her own right, and then marrying a foreigner-that is one who is not naturalized-takes the nationality of her husband and cannot vote. Is there any difference between these two cases?


Arthur Meighen: As the question appears to be directed to me, I ask permission of the House to answer it. The law gives every woman, no matter what may be her history, the nationality of her husband, whatever that nationality may be. Though she may have previously been naturalized in her own right, upon marriage to any one of foreign nationality she takes that nationality and becomes a citizen of that country; she is no longer a citizen of Canada and cannot vote in Canada.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to bring the debate back to British Columbia for a few minutes? I understood the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) to say just now-if I am wrong, I assume he will correct me-that the Dominion franchise followed, on broad lines, that of the provinces.


Arthur Meighen: We did not permit the provinces to disfranchise soldiers, but with that exception, where a province disfranchised because of race, that disfranchisement was carried into the federal act.


Alan Webster Neill: That is precisely the point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House-the question of disfranchising Asiatics-or enfranchising them, rather, for that is what it amounted to. I charge the late government with proceeding against the wishes of the people of British Columbia by enfranchising orientals in the late election. Quite a number of Japanese enlisted from that province during the war and went overseas with our troops. Some of these men were naturalized and some were not. When they came back they made application to the legislature of British Columbia, which was then sitting, for permission to vote. The matter was brought up by the G.W.V.A., and through four soldier members of the provincial House, in consultation with the government, and it was their joint opinion that whatever British Columbia owed these Japanese who had gone to the front with our men and had in many cases fought with them, we did not owe them the vote; that it was for many reasons-for a thousand reasons that I need not go into, but largely on account of the precedent it would create,-not desirable to grant them the franchise. I am not here to deal with the merits of that point; I am
Elections Act

merely emphasizing the fact that that is what the G.W.Y.A., the soldier members of the House and the government decided was in the best interests of British Columbia; and of those interests they were best qualified to judge. Therefore the application of the Asiatics to vote was disallowed and the act remained as it was before, disqualifying them. When the Dominion Government came to pass this Franchise Act, they were advised, presumably by members represent [DOT] ing the Coast districts, that it might be expedient to allow these Japanese to vote. We had also the same complaint that my friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) mentioned, and in addition the then government were advised that it would be policy to let these Japanese vote; therefore it was so arranged.
Now, the leader of the Opposition has said that where certain persons were disqualified by provincial enactment on account of their race, a similar disqualification was made effective by the Dominion,-soldiers, of course, being excepted. I will read what the act says:
Persons who, by the laws of any province in Canada, are disqualified from voting for a member of the Legislative Assembly of such province in respect of race, shall not be qualified to vote in such province under the provisions of this Act: provided however that the provisions of this paragraph shall not disqualify or render incompetent to vote any person who has served in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the late war and who produces a discharge.
You will observe, Sir, that this provision applied not simply to those who had fought in France, but to any who could produce a discharge. Some Asiatic may have been peeling potatoes at an internment camp, and if he could produce a discharge from the military forces he would be enfranchised under this provision. Or an Asiatic might have been engaged on one of the naval boats which carried supplies, oil and coal, to the various lighthouses, and which came under the naval service; if he could produce a discharge from that service, he was allowed to vote,-contrary, as I have intimated, to the express and determined wish of the people of British Columbia. I am not surprised that the Dominion Government wer >
ashamed to put that provision in plain black and white in the act; for instead of putting it among qualifications of electors in section 29 they stuck it among the disqualifications of electors in section 30, by means of a double negative. I was challenged on one platform to turn over from beginning to end the leaves of that book containing the Dominion Elections Act and show

where it was stated by any possible construction that the Japanese were permitted to vote. The ordinary man or woman wouh. find it impossible to discover any such provision, it was so subtly incorporated among the disqualifications. I therefore strongly hope that when the act is revised-and the leader of the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King) has indicated that there will be revision-this provision and many others of a similar character will be eliminated.


Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Law-rence-St. George) :: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say with reference to the resolution now before the House will be in a very few words. I rise not for the purpose of discussing any election or proceedings at elections, but merely to attempt to place before the House what seems to be a very grave injustice now imposed upon certain Canadian citizens in this Dominion. As I understand the situation, it is this. Under the Naturalization Act of 1914, which is, I believe, the law at present in force, with some minor amendments, it is provided that the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to bo a British subject. There is practically the same provision in our civil code in Lower Canada, in Article 23, and if I mistake not, the provision is general practically throughout the world. Now when the Elections Act was framed, British subjects were given the right to vote with the exception provided in subsection 2 of section 29, the effect of which was simply this: many foreign-born women married to Canadian citizens, naturalized or native-born, and therefore themselves Canadian citizens, were deprived of the right to vote unless they went before a judge and obtained a certificate in the form set out in the act. That is the situation as it held at the time the lists were in preparation. As my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has very clearly explained, possibly a situation may have existed then that does not exist now, but he also stressed very clearly that this provision of the act certainly imposed some other liability on these foreign-born women although Canadian citizens at the time. Some of the arguments used in the debate were that these foreign-born women did not understand our laws, our language, or our customs and temperament of the Canadian people. If that is the case, if these foreign-born women do not understand our laws, our language, or our temperament, how do they understand

Elections Act
them any better by going before a judge and getting a certificate entitling them to vote? It seems to me that when they can get a certificate by going before a judge that argument falls to the ground.
All that any fair-minded person could ask in regard to this section of the Elections Act is that these women be placed in just the same position as other Canadian citizens, so that they will not have to go before a judge, but before the registrar the same as every other voter, and the registrar can inquire into the facts and accept or refuse a particular person's claim to the right to vote. That is all that this resolution seeks to do, and I am therefore in favour of it. There was, without the slightest shadow of a doubt a great deal of injustice done to women in the division which I represent owing to the operation of this section in the last election. These women had lived there not one, two, or three years, but for many years; they understood our language, and affairs in this country and were quite as capable of exercising the franchise as many others who were placed on the voters' lists, but instead of being able to go before the registrar as the ordinary citizen could, and simply give their name to the registrar and then be permitted to vote, they had to go before a judge of the Superior Court or one having jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings and obtain a certificate, and then present themselves before the registrar. That, of course, placed great difficulties in the way of very many women, who had the right to vote, exercising their franchise. It is quite true that many of them took advantage of this provision in the act, but I claim that there was, and is, an injustice placed upon these women, who are Canadian citizens just as much as many other women who are placed on the electoral lists. For that reason I think this subsection ought to be repealed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before this resolution carries, I should like to present the view of the Government on this matter. In a word, I might say that I think my colleagues and I agree with every word uttered by the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). He has stated the case so clearly that' anything that might be added would simply be in the nature of reiteration.
As to the relation between the franchise and citizenship, I think we ought to do all we can to see that our citizenship is kept strong and well selected; but once a person becomes a British subject, I think we should do all in our power to instil in him or her a pride in British citizenship, and the first duty of every citizen is to take an intelligent part in governmental affairs. No one can exercise the full privilege of citizenship if he is deprived of the right to vote under the conditions prescribed in the electoral law. If, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the House will approve of this motion, I would say that the Government will at a later stage bring in an amendment to the Elections Act with a view to giving effect to the intention of this resolution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hesitate very much indeed intervening in this debate. I rise, not with any desire to question the good faith of my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler).
I listened with intense interest to his very able argument to-day, as I have done to his arguments during the past two years.
I do think, however, that the House is perhaps losing sight of an important point.
I am not desiring to reflect on the intelligence of the House at all, but sometimes we stress one point and lose sight of another which perhaps may be of greater importance. There is no desire on my part whatever to interfere with the widest privileges of the franchise being given to foreign-born women citizens of Canada. I do not desire that at all, and I never have. I know that this question has exercised my hon. friend from North Waterloo in sessions gone by very, very much, but I think that the House must take this point into consideration, and if, later on, the act is amended, it certainly ought to be provided for. If this clause is repealed, we shall be giving to women aliens who enter Canada the right to exercise the franchise irrespective of the length of time they have been in the country and of their knowledge of our language and affairs, without any qualification whatsoever except one, and that is that they are married to a naturalized or native-born Canadian. Let us examine that from a practical standpoint. I put an extreme case to my hon. friend a moment ago, not for the purpose of misleading the House, but to illustrate the case as clearly as possible, but he took advantage of the fact that the rules of the House forbade me to speak, and rather ridiculed the idea. Let us look at it just
Elections Act

for a moment, because I think it very vitally affects the question. If a woman immigrant, I care not where she comes from, enters Canada and, as very frequently happens, joins the sweetheart who preceded her and who has probbaly established a home in this country, it makes no difference whether they are married that very day or within six months or one or two years, that woman, if this resolution carries, could vote within a week or a month after her arrival and marriage in this country.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Two months' residence in the riding is required.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Two months' residence in the riding and a year's residence in the country but the point is-


Herbert Meredith Marler: Take the case of an
American citizen coming into the country and marrying a Canadian naturalized subject. She would under the law become a British subject but she might not be able to speak our language any more than a person coming from a foreign land in Europe. What about a case of that kind? I am simply asking for information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will be patient with me I will come to that in a moment. All I suggest is that the woman should acquire the right to vote on precisely the same grounds on which the man acquires that right. I appeal to the Prime Minister and the Government-because the former made a rather disturbing statement a moment ago-is it not reasonable and right that we should require the woman to comply with the same regulations that the man is called upon to comply with? On the other hand, if we allow the woman to vote simply by virtue of being married to a Canadian, she is given a privilege we have never extended to the man. If that point is fully met I have no objection to the disappearance of this clause and would vote for the resolution, but I certainly could not vote for the motion as it at present stands.
Now my hon. friend from St. George-St. Lawrence Division of Montreal (Mr. Marler) raised the question of the rather peculiar provision in the clause which really relates to persons coming from the United States. Well, my hon. friend knows exactly why that is in the act. He knows and the Minister of Railways also-


Samuel William Jacobs: Knows what?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Both these hon. members were on the committee that considered the legislation and both of them were the originators of that provision-


Samuel William Jacobs: Who were on the committee?


Henry Herbert Stevens: -but there is no reflection on them on that account.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I point out to my hon. friend that the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George Division came into the House as a result of the last election; he never was here before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I ought to have said that my hon. friend for George Etienne Cartier was one of the originators of the proviso in this clause. It was to meet his views very largely that the proviso was put in, and the hon. member knows it.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I tell my hon. friend that I am ndt complaining about the concessions which were wrung from the late government but of the things we failed to obtain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The proviso is more or less absurd. I grant that, but if, as he says, it is a concession which was wrung from the government he was responsible for it. Now he is complaining about its inequality; now he bases his whole argument this afternoon upon the fact that it is- what shall I say?-a discriminating proviso. But that is not the point. The point is whether or not the right for women to vote in Canada is to be upon the same basis as the right for men to vote. That is the broad general ground, I think, that we must stand upon; and we must also insist upon the right of women to the franchise being surrounded by the same safeguards that obtain in the case of men. The Government ought to be very careful before allowing this resolution to pass, because we do not want them to put themselves in the position of saying when the bill comes before the House "Well we are committed to the principle by this resolution." I think the suggestion made to let the resolution stand until the bill comes down is a good one. Then we can take the clause up under the illuminating intelligence of the hon. members who now occupy the Treasury benches and we will be able to work out something that will be satisfactory. Personally, I do not want to seem 5 p.m. to vote against the general idea behind the plea of my hon. friend

Elections Act
from North Waterloo, but I am certainly opposed to giving the franchise to women-* alien women coming to this country-on any other conditions than those which apply to manhood franchise. It is upon that point that I personally desire to protect the act and in order to protect the principle I shall feel myself called upon regretfully to vote against the resolution of my hon. friend.


Mr. THOMAS LANGTON CHURCH (North Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, the object of this motion is to repeal section 2 of section 29 of the Act of 1920. This legislation was passed only after the most mature, ample and thorough discussion in this House and in the country. There was a demand for it from the returned soldiers and patriotic organizations. I regret to have to differ with what has been said on the other side of the House to-day. Those who argue for this motion advance the doctrine that naturalization and the franchise are kindred subjects. Not so. No party since Confederation ever adopted that basic principle as a franchise test and hon. gentlemen who have argued in favour of that doctrine were themselves parties to the disfranchisement of many citizens of this country. The Act of 1920, gave the franchise to British subjects and no man or woman who was not a bona fide British subject, under this act, had a vote.
I have known .some of those who have had the ballot taken away from them. Many of these persons were of alien origin who came to Canada years ago, in infancy, and grew up with the country in the belief that they were British subjects. But, after careful legal inquiry, they found it impossible to show that they were British subjects. Under the Act of 1920, no citizen of any country but Canada, whether man or woman, had a right to vote. I am not aware of any country in the world, or of any British possession, that applies any other principle to its franchise legislation. No country that I ever heard of has ever called on anyone not a citizen to take up arms and defend the country, and no country in the world ever gave the franchise to any person not a bona fide, legal, citizen. No British legislature that I am aware of ever gave the franchise to any one not a citizen.
I regret that this matter has come up at the present time. Hon. gentlemen opposite, in looking over the country, find a lot of people without the ballot and they are
anxious to get them on the list because they believe that those who were left off under the Act of 1920, will vote for them and will vote in the way they want them to. That is why they now seek to repeal section 2. There is no demand for this legislation and it is too soon to repeal its provisions. It was not even an issue in the late election. This enactment was . a war measure. This is a British country, it is going to continue to be one and that is a fact that we want to make sure of.
Under the operation of the War-Time Elections Act in England no citizen of any other country than Britain was allowed to vote; only a British subject was permitted to cast a ballot. Practically the same thing was adopted in this country; the franchise, under the War-Time Elections Act was denied to all but Canadian citizens. The indispensable requisite before being allowed to vote is that a man shall be a Canadian citizen. That is the primary condition of the franchise in every country in the world. Certainly, it is the law in the United States. Over there they assimilate their population; a man must be an American citizen and fight for the United States, no matter what country he comes from, before he is allowed to cast his ballot. I admire the American people for the firm manner in which they carried out their draft law during the war; everybody had to toe the mark, obey the law and become an American citizen. Citizenship is really one of the principles of the American constitution; if you want to live in that country you must be a citizen and be prepared to fight, and if need be, die for the Union.
I think the hon. member's motion should go to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Such a provision as this should not be allowed to be passed without mature consideration, or before all classes are heard from and given an opportunity to present their views. We are here to give effect to public opinion. This proposition, I repeat, was not an issue in the last general election and there is no demand now from the people of Canada for the repeal of this war time measure. In his addresses to the people of North York the Prime Minister never even referred to the subject and the Government have no mandate to repeal this provision of the statute.
As this is only the first session of this Parliament, I would suggest that the hon. member allow this motion to go to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, pending the introduction of the bill, so
Elections Act

that we can have a fair discussion of the question before the proper tribunal. I know that in the constituency from which I come very strong objection is taken by different patriotic and soldier organizations to the repeal of this legislation. During the election campaign in my constituency I was asked if I was in favour of the repeal of the War-Time Elections Act and I said that I was not. I do not agree with the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), whom we are always glad to hear from. I understood her to say that she claimed no special privilege for women. She thought all they desired was to be considered equal with men in relation to the franchise. That is all very well as far as it goes, but it does not touch the principle involved here. Let me say to the hon. member that she does not represent all the women in this country, or all the women of Ontario, or even all the women of Southeast Grey. The women in the constituency from which I come, and the women's patriotic organizations, are thoroughly opposed to this proposed amendment.
The act was a war measure; it was passed after most mature consideration and it was favoured by a patriotic body of soldiers who had just returned from the front and been demobilized and who had seen the condition of affairs in the old land. It was at their request and at the request of patriotic organizations throughout Canada that this legislation was placed on the statute book. Therefore, if no reasons are given, I do not know why some of my hon. friends are so anxious that this motion should carry. It may be that in our country a large number of people do not have the vote and perhaps the hon. gentleman thinks they will vote for him. It seems to me that something might be said in reference to that. I think it would be far better as the session is early yet, and we have been here only a few days, to go slow and postpone consideration of this resolution. I regret very much that this matter has been brought up at the present time, because we want this country to continue to be a British country with British institutions flourishing and we do not want to be unfair to any citizen, no matter who he is. I think, therefore, it would be far better if the hon. member would allow his motion to go to the Privileges and Elections Committee, so that the various soldiers and patriotic and other organizations could be heard from in order that we might see whether there is any demand for this proposed legislation. I
I Mr. Church.]
am thoroughly opposed, Mr. Speaker, to any repeal of this statute and will vote against the motion.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: I should like to say just a few words on this subject, because I believe it affects the Prairie provinces probably as much as any other part of Canada, as we have to assimilate perhaps a greater percentage of that population than most other provinces have. I should like to say just a word as to the way in which the act has actually worked out in the permitting of women, who were absolutely qualified in every way to vote, to exercise the franchise. I am not going to go into the question of whether men and women should all be admitted to citizenship on an equal basis. That is a question of personal naturalization, and it hardly comes into this discussion; it is a question of amendment of the Naturalization Act. I have not considered the matter sufficiently to say whether or not I would oppose an amendment to the Naturalization Act, putting every man and woman on an equality as regards becoming naturalized, and eliminating the right of naturalization by marriage. The point is this: whether intentionally or not, that act prevented a large proportion of foreign-born women, who had been in this country a sufficient number of years to have assimilated our customs and acquired our language, from casting their ballots when election day arrived. Why did it do so? Partly, because of the distances which had to be traversed in that country in order that they might reach a judge. I am not reflecting on anything the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) or any other hon. member has said. Many members have no realization of the actual conditions which prevail in those prairie constituencies; they have no realization of their size, or the distances which must be covered, or the hardship which is inflicted on women who have to travel to meet the judge on a day which the judge has set, and obtain their certificates. We know that in the actual working out of that act, it was almost impossible, because the district was so large, to obtain judges to issue those certificates when the certificates were required. In all parts of those constituencies, in all parts of that prairie country, there were women requiring those certificates within a certain time, and with the number of judges we had, it was probably impossible for them to reach convenient points adjacent to all those women. In my

Elections Act
constituency-and I am speaking of. that, not because this it a personal matter, but because conditions in my constituency are probably much as they are in other large constituencies in the Prairie provinces- when it was possible to get a judge to come down, women had to travel anywhere from ten to fifty or sixty miles in order to meet that judge and get their certificates. The practical working out of that meant that they were debarred from obtaining those certificates, and they were thus debarred from voting.


Samuel William Jacobs: That was why the law was enacted.


Alfred Speakman: I am not making any reflections; I am simply making a statement of fact as it exists. I am not reflecting on the intentions of the hon. gentlemen who passed that act; possibly they had absolutely correct intentions.


Arthur Meighen: Do men not have to
do just the same thing?


Alfred Speakman: Not necessarily, so far as I can see.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is easier for a
man to travel than for a woman.


Alfred Speakman: That is not the
point. A man can, to a certain extent before he is naturalized, choose his time for naturalization. In the case where a women has to receive her voting certificate in a comparatively short time preceding an election-


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
is mistaken, I think. She can do that at any time at all. She has exactly the same privileges as a man.


Alfred Speakman: I stand corrected,
but neither I nor any other of the people in my constituency knew that a woman had the same right. The bulk of the women affected were not women who had come to Canada within a week or a month or a year of the date of the election. This legislation affected, to a large extent, the old-established constituencies, the old districts; it affected women who, for years, had understood that they were full Canadian citizens, women who had, so far as women could, fulfilled all the duties of Canadian citizenship. In actual effect, whatever the intention of the law was, it debarred those women from enjoying the full advantage accruing to the citizenship which they had acquired. I consider it was particularly a hardship in those
pioneer districts. If ever any women on God's earth deserve the franchise and the full right of saying what legislation shall be passed affecting the rights and lives of every man and woman in this country, it is those women who went into those pioneer districts and, with their husbands, attempted to extend civilization into those wildernesses. The actual effect of that law which compelled those women to obtain such certificates before voting was to deprive a large percentage of them of the franchise.
On those grounds, on the grounds of common justice, on the ground that men and women who are full-fledged Canadian citizens should enjoy the fruits of Canadian citizenship, should enjoy the honour and fulfil the highest obligation of Canadian citizenship, I shall support the resolution.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is one principle that we have somewhat forgotten in this discussion, and that is that, with war, there comes penalizing legislation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The war is over.


William Findlay Maclean: The war is over, therefore, the penalizing legislation ought to be modified. That will present itself to people in a broad way. For instance, our sentiment towards German citizenship is changing every day, and we are going to forget a lot of things that happened during the war, especially in the matter of legislation. The world is going to try to get together again and to get along as it used to do. As the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) pointed out, there was a reason for framing the law as it stands.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Do you not know that this legislation was enacted two years after the war was over?


William Findlay Maclean: Even granting that, there are a lot of people in this country, of whom perhaps I am one, who cannot forget that the war is over; and although we may forget some of the hardships and penalties that were necessary for national safety in time of war, we must bear in mind that we should not go too far in mitigating the law. We want to have a democratic franchise in this country, and we should try to suggest such means as will give us the best election system we can have. As an hon. member from Toronto suggests, a question of this kind should be
Elections Act

submitted to a committee, and it might be wise for the hon. member for North Waterloo to let his motion stand until we ascertain what the Government submits to the House later on.
Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up much time, nor do I rise for the purpose of opposing in any way the motion before the House. I simply rise to indicate the consequence which might follow if the motion were passed, in the exact terms in which it is couched, and the Government felt called upon to implement the resolution by legislation exactly expressing it. Possibly the House is aware of the condition of affairs at the present day, let us say, with regard to Italy. Suppose two Italian women came to Canada both absolutely ignorant, as they might well be, of a single word of either French or English. One of these women, let us say, is married, the other unmarried. After the lapse of one year the unmarried woman, without perhaps having acquired the slightest facility in the use of either language, and without being able to understand the political conditions of the country, or to transact the slightest bit of business, will become franchised by the mere fact of marriage, if my hon. friend's resolution is carried directly into effect. In the case of the woman who is already married, however, some five years, I think, must elapse; and, I think, she must satisfy some official that she has a sufficient knowledge of one or other of the languages of the country ip, order to be able to communicate intelligently. Now, would it not be well to pause and, whether by means of a committee such as has been referred to, or by direct consideration by the Government, let us have all these possible phases carefully considered so that we might have legislation which would extend the franchise as far as it ought to go without creating any absurdities? I think that we, and all the people of the country, agree on the principle that the franchise should be as broad as is consistent with the safety of our institutions; and the safety of our institutions depends upon the capacity of the intended voter to apprehend the political and social questions which confront the people of Canada from time to time. Without a good working knowledge of one of the languages used in Canada, it is impossible for a voter intelligently to exercise the franchise. Do not let us rush in and alter the existing legislation in a spirit of ineffable charity, 
in order that some one shall be enfranchised without the slightest possibility of obtaining, through the natural community channels, a conception of what is going on in the country. That is not a real charity; it is not a prerogative; it is not a gift; it is simply a wasting and a debasing of the franchise that confers no real benefit on the individual who receives it.
On the other hand, I am forcibly struck by the remarks made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman). I can well apprehend the difficulty that would occur in many of the rural constituencies when people did not seek to register until practically the last few days of the campaign. They thought nothing of the vote until they wanted to use it, and then distance became a great obstacle. I have seen, and I fancy hon. members have all seen, precisely the same thing within the limits of densely settled communities. Very often people object to travelling a few blocks, or spending an hour or two, in order to reach the official. There is plenty of time during the whole year in which they can do this, and practically without inconvenience; but people complain, because, forsooth, everything is not ready for them right at hand at the time they realize that they want to make use of the franchise. Notwithstanding this statement, I do sympathize with the difficulties which distance imposes on a great many people in the rural communities, in the East just as well as in the West. Let us, then, give consideration to the other provisions of the election law and see if we can devise some tribunal that will exercise proper and reasonable discrimination that will not pass people through at the rate of several hundred in an hour, as was done in one of the most populous centres of the country. Let the officials get closer in touch with the people, so that they will not have to travel scores of miles. We should so arrange it that people could be accommodated at convenient seasons and, if they realize the importance of the franchise themselves, given the opportunity to be properly enrolled and enfranchised. Let that be confined, however, to the people who can speak one language or other in use in the country, and let us put the women on the same basis as the men. For myself, I would do away with marriage-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. BAXTER:: -as a qualification. Hon. members will observe the qualification I make. I am like the leader of the House

Supply-Labour
(Mr. Mackenzie King); we have both done without this popular institution for a good many years. If my hon. friend intends to change his attitude in this regard I shall not follow his example. It is one of the characteristics of the members of this particular group that they pursue the same policy right along. I would suggest that the women should be naturalized just in the same way as the men, on the same basis as to literacy and the question whether or not they would be desirable citizens of the country. There is legislation to come before the House, possibly within a day or two, by which would-be assassins or exponents of assassination as a means of changing government are not to be deported without trial. I do not think that the sober sense of the country intends to permit its election law to be so broad as +o include elements of that character. Until we resolve to break down such barriers as these we must have some tribunal before which intending citizens shall submit themselves to a reasonable test as to their fitness to take part in the government of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion being called:
That, in the opinion of this House, the British tariff preference should be confined to goods brought into Canada through Canadian seaports.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: When does my hon. friend for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) intend to proceed with this motion? The subject matter is very interesting to me and very important, especially to certain parts of the Dominion. I had intended putting a similar resolution upon the Order Paper myself. I am very glad my hon. friend has done so, and I should like to be assured that he will proceed with ihis motion.


Mr. H. J. LOGAN (Cumberland):: I have been waiting for some information from the Customs Department which I have only just received, and as it is now nearly six o'clock I did not think it was worth while to proceed with the motion to-day.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It will be duly proceeded with?


Hance James Logan: Yes, I can assure my hon. friend that it will be brought forward at the next opportunity.



QUEBEC FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the motion being called:
For a copy of the correspondence and all other documents regarding the transfer of fisheries to the Province of Quebec.
Arthur Meighen: The intention that
this motion would be taken up to-day has not been realized. I do not want to speak on the motion myself; I merely want to see it carried with as little delay as possible.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaven-ture) :: I had intended proceeding with the motion to-day, but it being nearly six o'clock I did not think it advisable to do so.


Arthur Meighen: There will be no discussion.


Charles Marcil: I shall take it up to-morrow.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for the second reading of Bill No. 16 to amend the Immigration Act:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I ask the sponsor of this bill (Mr. Woodsworth) if he would be agreeable to allow it to stand until the Minister of Immigration is here?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Yes.
Order stands.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the second reading of Bill No. 17 to amend the Criminal Code:
James Shaver Woodsworth: This bill has relation to the same subject matter, and therefore it had better stand, too.
Order stands.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the second reading of Bill No. 18, to repeal The Military Service Act, 1917.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Stands.

House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
Civil Government:-Labour-Salaries, $258.755.
Mr. MURDOCK-I have been able to secure the further detailed information in
Supply-Labour

regard to outside employees of the Labour Department, which my hon. friend from Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) was extremely anxious to have. The permanent staff of the Labour Department outside of Ottawa, is composed of: Mr. R. A. Rigg, General Superintendent employment offices at Winnipeg, at a salary of $3,000 a year; Mrs. M. Chesney, statistical clerk in the same office, at $1,200 a year. Mr. J. Shannon, also a statistical clerk in the same office, at a salary of $1,080 a year. At Halifax, Mr. K. G. Christie is employed as clearance officer at $1,980, and Miss A. M. Stewart as clerk stenographer at $960. The fair wage officers are as follows: at Calgary, Mr. F. E. Harrison, $2,220; at Vancouver, Mr. D. T. Bulger, $2,340; at Toronto, Mr. E. N. Compton, $2,340; at Montreal, T. Bertrand, $1,740. Miss O. M. Compton is clerk typist in the Toronto office, at $960. Mr. George P. Shields is a clearance officer now located at Ottawa. The information I have here with respect to Mr. Shields is that since his discharge from the C.E.F. he has been employed mostly outside of Ottawa, being for some time clearance officer at Vancouver. When this statement was prepared he was in Toronto making investigations; at present he is at headquarters, but for the purposes of this statement he was classified as an outside employee. These are the eleven permanent so-called outside employees of the Labour Department. The temporary outside employees are Mr. G. I. Duke, clerk-stenographer, $960; Miss M. B. Nesbitt, junior clerk stenographer, $900; Miss I. Thomas, junior clerk, $900,-all in Mr. Rigg's office at Winnipeg. Miss H. A. Frederick is junior clerk-stenographer in Mr. Harrison's office at Calgary at a salary of $900. Miss E. B. Mitchell is clerk-stenographer in Mr. Bulger's office, Vancouver, at $960.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: What are the duties of a clearance officer, and why has that office been discontinued at Vancouver?


Mr. MURDOCK:: I hold up for the inspection of hon. members the book containing the classification of, the Civil Service of Canada. I am told that it does not contain one-half the present classifications of the Service, and I am unable to find in it a statement of the duties of the clearance officer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell them yourself.


James Murdock: I am sorry to say that I have not been in the department long

enough to know all the various classifications of the service, nor do J expect to be able to remain long enough to do so.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There is a Mr. Cochrane employed at Moncton who keeps in touch with the railway employees. Is he under the minister's department?


James Murdock: I do not think so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think his appointment is made by the local administration, with the co-operation of the Dominion.


Mr. HANSON:: I know the gentleman;
he is an officer of the Labour Department, in charge of the Employment Bureau here. .


Arthur Bliss Copp: He is appointed, I believe, by the local government.


James Murdock: This re-classification
volume does not define the duties of a clearance officer, but I shall be glad to get the information and place it before my hon. friend. The Civil Service Commission establish the titles and define the duties of these various positions; the matter is not in the hands of the minister, or, I believe, of anyone in the department.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I was curious to
know why the office had been discontinued at Vancouver while, apparently, there is still one at Halifax.


James Murdock: I think the intention
is to make a different classification for the gentleman at Calgary, carrying with it a slightly increased scale of compensation. The Civil Service Commission recently determined that so-called fair wage officers who devoted a considerable portion of their time to investigation of matters connected with the coal mining industry should be placed in a different classification from that of ordinary fair wage investigators who covered a wide field in other classes of employment. Accordingly, I understand they are rearranging the classification, slightly increasing, I believe, the compensation for fair wage officers having to do with matters affecting the coal mining industry.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Can the minister, now that he has the volume, state a little more definitely than he did yesterday what are the duties of the Industrial Engineer?


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: If the
minister will pardon me, I may say that I have been struck with the interest that has been shown by the minister's explanation of these numerous titles that are now attached to people in the Civil Service who,

Supply-Labour
in my previous days in the House of Commons were simply known as clerks, and I discovered that you will find in the Distribution Office a large volume, if not two or three prepared by this wonderful Griffen-hagen firm which was employed by the late government, at very great expense to the country, to reclassify the whole Civil Service; and in it will be found the duties of all the positions classified. The minister of any one department has nothing whatever to do with the affixing of titles or assigning the duties of the office.


James Murdock: As I happen to have under my hand the duties of the Industrial Engineer, I will read them:
Definition of Class:
To act as technical adviser to the Department of Labour; to investigate various industrial matters and to prepare reports thereon; to draft forms and draw up standard practice instructions for use in the branches of the department; to act in an advisory capacity in connection with industrial disputes ; to gather data and to furnish information and assistance in connection with the establishment of Joint Industrial Councils pursuant to the recommendation of the National Industrial Conference; and to perform other related work as required. Qualifications:
Education equivalent to graduation in arts, science, or engineering from a university of recognized standing; at least five years of experience in constructive investigation work, of which at least two years shall have been in an administrative or consulting capacity; initiative, tact and good judgment; good address. Compensation :
Monthly: $ 255	270	285	300Annual: $3,060	3,240	3,420	3,600
This was described by the commission as a new class at the time it was classified. I do not think it would be out of the way for me to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that these definitions of class and qualifications were prepared under the direction of or directly by gentlemen who were being paid at the race of $7 tier hour, which perhaps accounts for their being so exhaustive.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: As the minister was reading the classification I felt like remarking with regard to the particular type of individual required for this work, "Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven," for it did not seem to me that you could add a single quality or a single bit of knowledge to such a wonderful combination of human intellect, resource and ability, as is there depicted by the Griffenhagen people or the Civil Service Commission.
I rose for the purpose of asking the minister, who I believe is a practical man, whether, stripping himself of all the attributes of the ministry, he does not feel like saying to this House that as regards the practical questions that have to be met in the labour world the real way to get at the root of any labour problem is to get a commonsense man or a body of men, who may never have had a university education at all, to go down into the thick of it between the capitalist and the employees and talk common sense to both sides, with a view to bringing them together. I believe that the minister and myself are absolutely of one mind there, and no matter what commissions the past government may have appointed, at no matter what cost, I trust that we are going to see from the minister within a very short time a scheme based on the real practical fundamentals of human nature. Perhaps he may be able to outline it later and tell us when we shall be able to get down to something less in the way of expense for what is almost a work of supererogation along the lines of education, and depend on the thing that really counts, human character in touch with human problems.


James Murdock: I wholeheartedly agree that the hon. gentleman is talking common sense when he speaks of the proper methods of dealing with industrial disputes.


Mr. LADNER:: There is a decided increase in these estimates over last year, apart from the statutory increases. Now, considering general world conditions and decrease in wages in all forms of labour, skilled and unskilled, I should like to ask the minister whether, when these Estimates were presented to him, he endeavoured to find out why there had been an increase, and whether some method could not be devised for bringing his estimates more into conformity with general conditions in the labour world outside.


James Murdock: I did so. The proposed increase of $23,400 in the civil gov eminent estimates, so far as I know and honestly believe, is partly necessary in accordance with the provisions of the law regulating the statutory salary increases. I am sure my hon. friend will not hold me responsible for what is outside my control. Part of the increased cost is due to the appointment of some additional employees, but these I honestly believe to be necessary for the successful and proper functioning of the Department of Labour. Even with these additions to the permanent staff I am at a loss to know whether we will be even able to carry on, after dispensing with possibly twenty-five or thirty
Supply-Labour

temporary employes who were appointed during the regime of my predecessor and have been in the department ever since I took office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Out of what vote were these forty-seven temporary employees paid?


James Murdock: Partly out of the vote for contingencies and sundries. To some extent the cost has also been met out of employment services and the industrial training fund, and other sources. Now, what I hope to do is to come right out into the open and resort to no camouflage to shelter any employee in the Labour Department. If such does not appear to be my course at the present time it is because -and I frankly admit the fact-I have not yet got a sufficiently detailed grasp of the entire situation to know just what can be done. I believe, however, that something can be done to improve the situation as regards the number of employees and to meet what I understand to be the generally expressed wish of Parliament.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 30, 1922