1923-04-25

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER. I have the honour to inform the House that I have received notice
that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Commons of the electoral district of Nicolet in the province of Quebec, the sitting member thereof, Arthur Trahan, Esquire, having accepted an office of emolument under the Crown. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out a new writ for the election of a member to the said electoral district.

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

Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Has the government any information relative to the amount of damage which is being caused in the forests of Canada and the industries related thereto; (a) by fungi; (b) by insects?
2.	Does such information relate to the forests under the jurisdiction of the Dominion Government and separately to the forests under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments?

3.	If so, what is the nature of the information whether in reports or otherwise and does such information disclose damages in percentage of trees destroyed or the value of the same?
4.	What steps, if any, are being taken to ascertain the extent of the losses due; (a) to fungi; (b) to insects?
5.	Has the government any men on the scientific staff or in the departments engaged in the study of the causes and control of damage caused by fungi and insects generally and if so, how many?
6.	How many men are engaged in the study of the causes and control of damage caused to forest trees; (a) by fungi; (b) by insects?
7.	Does the government consider such a staff sufficient to cope with the loss to such a great natural resource as the forests of Canada?
8.	Is it the intention of the government to extend the scientific study of the causes and control of damage and to take practical remedies for the preservation of the forests of Canada?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	(a) and (b). The government has a considerable amount of information with regard to insect injuries and fungi from many parts of the Canadian forest. This information has been collected by the division of Forest Insects of the Entomological branch and by the division of Botany of the experimental farms of the Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Dominion Forestry branch of the Department of the Inte'rior and the various provincial forest administrations.
2.	This information relates to all Canadian forests wherever insects and fungous outbreaks develop and are studied.
3.	Information on injury caused by forest insects has been published in several bulletins and circulars by the Entomological branch of the Department of Agriculture and further information will be found in the annual reports of the Dominion Entomologist.
Information on fungous injuries will be found in the reports of the Dominion Botanist for the years 19^1 and 1922. Further detailed information concerning both these subjects is available in the files of the Department of Agriculture.
Records are kept of important forest insect and fungous outbreaks and detailed reports upon the injuries are prepared in all cases studied by our officers. These reports give the cause and course of the injury with its details and where possible the extent of the injury is determined, although accurate estimates of this kind are sometimes very difficult to obtain.
4.	(a) The division of Botany of the Experimental Farms branch conduct field examinations of forest areas with a view to ascertaining the damage due to fungi and the most feasible means of control. Extensive surveys have been conducted' in connection with the white pine blister rust in British Columbia and eastern Canada.

Questions
(b) In connection with all important forest insect outbreaks the officers of the division of Forest Insects in the Entomological branch conduct special forest insect surveys, often in co-operation with the dominion and provincial Forestry branches, in order to determine the cause and extent of the injuries. Extensive surveys of this kind have been made during the last two seasons in connection with the pine bark-beetle outbreaks in British Columbia and with the spruce budworm outbreaks in eastern Canada.
5.	The Entomological branch has 39 permanent technical officers on the scientific staff and provision is being made for 55 temporary and seasonal assistants this season.
The division of Botany has 14 permanent technical officers and provision is being made for 33 permanent and temporary assistants this season. All these officers are engaged in the study of the causes and control of damage caused by fungi and insects generally.
6.	(a) The division of botany employs one technically trained forest pathologist and in adition 6 temporary assistants are to be employed this summer.
(b) The division of forest insects in the Entomological branch employs 7 technically trained officers engaged solely in investigation of forest insects and their injuries and control. Five of these are stationed in eastern Canada and two in British Columbia. In addition these officers are assisted by permanent or seasonal assistants according to their need.
7.	The government is fully aware of the fact that as far as forest pathology is concerned, considerably more work should be done, and is ever ready to give careful consideration to the representations made by the industries concerned in order to assist in the solution of these serious causes of losses to our forest resources.
8.	The Entomological branch has extended its investigations of the dying balsam and spruce in eastern Canada, with a view to determining the cause and rate of deterioration of the dying and dead timber and the degree to which it can still be salvaged.
A great amount of work in connection with the natural control of spruce budworm by means of parasites bred and distributed from the entomological laboratory at Fredericton, N.B., has already been performed This work has now been placed directly under the charge of the division of forest insects. A report on past work in this connection has been practically completed and will shortly be published. A scheme of co-operation is also contemplated between the owners of some timber limits and the division of Botany
whereby the services of trained forest pathologists will be available for the particular study of various diseases affecting balsam and spruce in the eastern forests.


CIVIL GOVERNMENT SALARIES, 1913-22
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	What was the total expenditure for Civil government salaries for the fiscal years 1913, 1916, 1919, 1922, including any bonus to such Civil Servants?
2. How much was spent as above by each department?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: The information desired is covered by an order of the House made several days ago, and the return will be brought down in due course.


MR. JOHN CAMERON STUART
Mr. JONES:: 1.	When was Mr. Campbell Stewart appointed to his present position in the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What salary did he receive when first appointed?
3.	What salary is he in receipt of at the present time?
4.	What are his duties and is his time fully occupied in the carrying out of said duties?
5.	What amount, if any, has he received as travelling
expenses each year since his appointment?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	No one by the name of Mr. Campbell Stewart is employed in the Department of Agriculture. Mr. John Cameron Stuart is employed as a district live stock promoter in the Live Stock branch, which classification he received April 1st, 1919.
2.	Mr. Stuart's initial salary as District Live Stock Promoter was $1,920.
3.	$2,160.
4.	Organizing a system for the local marketing of live stock and live stock products in cities and towns throughout Ontario and Quebec; assisting in the drafting of municipal by-laws for the regulation of such marketing; attending meetings of farmers' organizations for the purpose of organizing the selling of farmers' produce at municipal markets; attending mettings in cities and towns of consumers' organizations is connection with the purchase of meats and other produce; compiling meat bulletins, particularly for the information of consumers; conducting special inquiries, under direction, regarding domestic marketing problems. Mr. Stuart's time is fully occupied in carrying out such duties.
5.	1919-20,	$2,566.97;	1920-21,	$3,417.78;
1921-22, $3,536.30; 1922-23, $3,256.40.


MR. LEONARD COOKE
Mr. JONES:: 1.	When was Mr. Leonard Cooke appointed to his present position in the Department of Agriculture?
Questions

2.	What salary clid he receive when first appointed?
3.	What salary is he in receipt of at the present time?
4.	What are his duties and is his time fully occupied in the carrying out of said duties?
5.	What amount, if any, has he received as travelling expenses each year since his appointment?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Transferred to the Live Stock branch, July 1st, 1921.
2.	$2,280.
3.	$2,400.
4.	Mr. Cooke's position is that of transportation specialist. In this capacity he has charge of preparing cases for live stock shippers and exporters in connection with applications for reduction in freight rates or improved sendee for presentation to the Canadian Freight Association or to the Board of Railway Commissioners. He arranges for informal interviews with railway officials for the purpose of securing improved rates and of eliminating delay in the transportation of live stock; he checks the accommodation provided by the railways in the way of cars and equipment in connection with the transportation of live Btock to domestic markets or for export; he arranges for interviews with steamship companies for the reduction of ocean freight rates on live stock and live stock products; he supervises the movement of exhibition stock to and from our larger exhibitions; he answers numerous inquiries from live stock shippers re rates on live stock and checks rates charged; he addresses live stock meetings re transportation problems, and as a. result of his work numerous resolutions


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	1920
Nova Scotia	$ 2,382 62
New Brunswick	
1,822	65Quebec	
4,457	75Ontario	
14,468	47Manitoba	
7,759	88Saskatchewan	
936	00Alberta	
1,082	73British Columbia	
1,959	87Yukon	
32	66
have been received from various live stock associations commending in the highest possible terms the service that Mr. Cooke has rendered since the transportation service in the Dominion Live Stock branch was initiated. Mr. Cooke's time is fully occupied in carrying out said duties.
5.	July 1, 1921 to March 31, 1922, $1,972.56; April 1, 1922 to March 1, 1923, $3,372.60.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	What are the salaries of the members of the Soldier Settlement Board?
2.	(a) What other amounts have been paid to these officials for the years 1921-22 and 1922-23, and (b) for what were these amounts paid?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Major John Barnett, $7,000; Major E. J. Ashton, $5,000; Mr. S. Maber, $5,000.
2.	(a) 1921-22: Major John Barnett, 81,-
049.24; Major E. J. Ashton, $795.40; Mr. S. Maber, S3S1.37. 1922-23: Major John Barnett, S744.29; Major E. J. Ashton, $2,292.28; Mr. S. Maber, $606.75.	(b) For travelling expenses.



FINES UNDER INCOME TAX ACT

Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	How much was collected in each province, in penalties, for violation of the Income Tax Act, each year since its imposition?
2.	Is the Government prepared to consider a variation in penalties in connection with the Income Tax Act; (a) as between first offender and subsequent offenders; and (b) according to the duration of time the taxpayer is in default?
1921	1922	1923	$ 7,758	02	$10,634	15	$12,542	385,190	97	5,132	31	6,941	7628,714	86	24,332	39	25,603	0277,229	53	73,533	69	90,955	3120,621	90	20,298	37	13,841	9012,172	48	14,919	27	21,940	8412,936	24	11,871	97	10,687	5113,775	36	15,899	36	19,015	39375	09	261	18	212	402.	A revision of the penalty clauses in The Income War Tax Act is under consideration. ARICHAT WHARF


Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What was the total cost of the repairs to the Arichat, Cape Breton, wharf (a) in 1921; (b) in 1922?
2.	What amount of lumber was used?
3.	What were the various sizes and dimensions of lumber used ?
4.	What was the cost for each size or dimension per thousand?

5.	Who supplied the lumber in question?
6.	What amount was paid to each party for lumber so supplied?
7.	What was the total amount of money paid in wages, and at what rate?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No repairs were made to the wharf at Arichat during the fiscal years 1921 and 1922.
2,	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Answered by No. 1.

Single Transferable Vote



UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
TORONTO SUBURBAN RAILWAY Mr. CHURCH:
For a copy of all orders in council, letters, agreements, telegrams, and other correspondence relating to the sale of the Toronto Suburban Railway or any part thereof by the government of Canada or the Canadian National Railways to the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario or the city of Toronto.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: In view of the fact that the House, without a division, approved of the principle of transferable votes in single-member constituencies, is it the intention of the government to bring in a bill during the present session to carry that idea into effect?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I spoke of this matter the other day but I am afraid my hon. friend was not in the House at the time. I asked the chief electoral officer of the government to prepare an amendment to the Elections Act to meet what my hon. friend has in mind. I have received his report; I find it will involve the amending of a number of sections of the act as it stands. It is not the simple matter which my hon. friend imagines it is, of a clause or two; it will necessitate amending the existing act in many particulars. The government is not desirous of adding to the legislative programme of the present session by bringing the Elections Act into the House for purposes of amendment if no special immediate need for this appears on the surface. Under the circumstances, our present intention is to allow any amendments to the act to remain over until next session.



MR. DUNCAN MARSHALL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HARRIS:: I would call the attention of the government to an article appearing in the Toronto Daily Star of Monday, April the 23rd, under the caption "Eager crowds watch emigrants depart." The article says in part:
Duncan Marshall, Chief of the Colonization department, came to see the party off.
The article declares also that a large number of people who purposed coming to this country changed their minds at the last moment. I might ask the government whether Mr. Duncan Marshall wTas on business of the department at Stornoway or has he been transferred to the Colonization department? When
was such transfer made? Or is this a case *where a disappointed politician is receiving just a little joy ride to Stornoway?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This is the first intimation I have had of any transfer of the kind.
AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS REPORT On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Does the government intend to have copies of the interim report of the special committee to inquire into Agricultural Conditions printed and placed in the hands of hon. members? This is a very important report and hon. members should have an opportunity of studying it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is printed in the Votes and Proceedings.
PRIVILEGE-MR. GOOD On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On the 1st of March my veracity was inferentially questioned by the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) who, in reference to myself spoke these words:
He quoted the Hon. Mr. Raney as his main authority,
I would say to justify his resolution. I am not sure that I shall surprise the ,hon. member for Brant, but
1	may tell him this, that the Hon. Mr. Raney has never asked for any such amendment as the amendment my hon. friend now proposes to this House.
And a little further on:
Mr. Raney never asked that we should repeal section
2	of article 235 as the hon. member for Brant now
proposes.
I had not at that time the definite information which would enable me to give a categorical denial of that unfair charge, but I wrote to Mr. Raney immediately afterwards- on the 3rd March. Unfortunately, owing to his illness, I did not secure permission from him to use his letter until a. short time ago. I wish to read a paragraph of Mr. Raney's letter to me in reply, in which he says:
You stated the situation very fairly in your speech winding up the debate-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would remind the hon. member that under the rules it is not permissible to read a letter referring to the current debates of this House.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is that what I had intended to place on record emphatically and distinctly confirms my statement and proves beyond a shadow of doubt that I was speaking the truth when I stated Mr. Raney's position.
Naturalization Acts

Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice); Mr. Speaker, I regret I was not in my seat when my hon. friend rose. I simply said that, I would perhaps surprise him when I declared that I had. received a communication from the Attorney General of Ontario asking for a certain amendment which I would introduce. I never pretended that he was not speaking the truth in what he said to this House.



NATURALIZATION ACTS AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 85 to amend the Naturalization Acts 1914 and 1920, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Has the minister anything to report to the committee since this bill was before us on a former occasion? He was to consider whether he would not have the various naturalization acts consolidated.


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: The suggestion made by my hon. friend for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) for the consolidation of our naturalization law was referred to the officials of the department. While many arguments might be advanced in favour of the consolidation of this and other legislation, owing to the fact that a very large number of forms have been already printed under the title of the present act, and would have to be scrapped if we proceeded with consolidation, involving a waste of something like $15,000 or $20,000, I do not think the advantage that would accrue from such consolidation would warrant this heavy loss, especially bearing in mind that the consolidation and revision of our Dominion statutes is under consideration and will be taken in hand within a very short time. Therefore it seems to me that we might very well defer the consolidation of our Naturalization law until the consolidation of our statutes generally is undertaken.


Hugh Guthrie: The reason given by my hon. friend for not bringing in a consolidated bill at the present session does not appeal to me as yery important. I remember that two or three years ago the same reason was given by the Under Secretary of State in relation to this same act-I think it was in 1919 when we were down in the old Museum building. This very bill was brought up and the question of consolidation of our naturalization law was objected to then on the ground that a lot of forms would have to be scrapped; and I think the Under Secretary of State had had new forms printed on that occasion. That does not seem to me to be a very substantial reason for postponing an absolutely necessary work if we are to understand our naturalization law as we should 
understand it. My hon. friend says that the work of consolidation has been considered, and I think he says it will be undertaken. I suppose he means in connection with the revision of the Dominion statutes. That work has been going on for some time, and I think we might reasonably expect it to be completed within the present year at all events. Therefore would it not be well for my hon. friend to allow this bill to stand in the meantime? _ No great injury and no great inconvenience will be suffered in the next few months by allowing this bill to stand until this consolidation takes place. He will agree with me, I am sure, that what he proposes now is a very radical departure from the practice in the past in regard to naturalization. I am satisfied that a good many members will desire to discuss the question, and as the session is fairly well advanced now for a measure of this kind, I would suggest that it stand over until a consolidated bill can be brought in and passed.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I should like very much to agree to my hon. friend s suggestion if I thought it would be in the best interests of the country and parliament to do so. He will remember that this bill was introduced last session after strong requests, amounting almost to demands, from different portions of the Dominion that some changes should be made in the act generally as well as in the administration of it. Under the conditions then prevailing I felt that we would be justified in allowing the bill to stand over until this session, but now it has gone forth that these amendments would be re-introduced and considered I think we should proceed with the bill. The amendments are only two or three in number. I agree with my hon. friend that in one particular instance the change is in a way somewhat radical, but I am sure that if he will give his attention to these amendments -and I know his legal knowledge and ability will stand him in good stead in doing so-he will * agree with me that they are desirable and will be of great advantage to all portions of the Dominion. After giving this matter my very best consideration, and after conferring with the officials of the department who have had charge of the administration of our Naturalization law long before 1914, I am confident that the suggested changes will be of very great advantage as affecting those who desire to become naturalized citizens of Canada. We open our doors to people from other lands; we give them to understand that our country is ready to receive them and that after residing in Canada a certain length of time they will be entitled to become aatur-

Naturalization Acts
alized Canadian citizens. So that with due inquiry as to their fitness, we should remove all annoying restrictions upon applications for naturalization. The suggestions I have made in this bill are of the simplest character and should, I am sure, meet with the approval of the committee.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Will the minister explain what the changes are?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I assume my hon. friend was not in the House the day before yesterday when I explained the proposed changes. I shall be glad, however, briefly to restate them. Prior to 1914 all applications for naturalization were made to the local judges of the courts in the different provinces. The application was presented to the court on the opening day and if no objection was made during the entire sitting of the court and the judge was satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to become a Canadian citizen, the application was granted. In 1914 a change was made; it was provided that naturalization certificates should be issued, not by the judges of our courts, but by the State department. The applicant files his application with the clerk of the court, where it remains on file for three months. It is not published in any way; it may be hung in the clerk's office behind the door or the safe. At the end of three months, notice is supposed to be given to the applicant; he then appears before the court in person and the judge inquires into his qualifications for citizenship. Formerly the judge at this point had the decision in his own hands, but by the act of 1914, amended in 1920. it was provided that the judge should simply report to the Secretary of State whether he approved or disapproved of the application, and if the Secretary of State found the applicant to be a fit and proper subject for naturalization the certificate issued from the State department. My hon. friend, in discussing this matter the other day, suggested that it would be giving any minister very great power to leave wholly to him the decision whether or not applicants for naturalization should be given certificates. But by the present act, irrespective of the report made by the judges, irrespective of whether they approve or disapprove of the application, the Secretary of State has absolute discretion to say whether or not the application should be granted. In other words, I am taking no more power than we have under the present act, but I am asking that we do away with the provision under which a man's application is held up for three months while it is posted, perhaps, behind the door or elsewhere in the
office of the clerk. I do not suggest for a moment that the clerk would secrete it purposely, but there is no publication given to it and there can be no advantage in holding the application up in this manner for three or four months. The committee will agree that upon careful inquiry being made into his qualifications, it is our duty to give to an applicant for naturalization a reasonable opportunity of becoming a citizen of Canada without undue delay and that, so long as we provide reasonable safeguards, we should remove as many stumbling blocks as we can from his path.


William Garland McQuarrie: What investigation
does the minister propose to substitute for the investigation that has been made by the county court judges? It is very necessary that someone should have the opportunity of coming in personal contact with the applicant. The minister says that the Secretary of State under the present law can issue a naturalization certificate irrespective of the report made by the county court judge. I suppose the minister would not suggest that the Secretary of State or the Under Secretary of State would completely disregard the report of the county court judge.
I believe that we should give naturalization to proper persons, but we should also safeguard the right to become a naturalized British subject because that right carries wdth it certain privileges which later on may become troublesome. We have had cases of that in British Columbia. We have found that naturalization certificates were issued without proper^ investigation. That was previous to 1914, and we have found since that time that naturalized British subjects who were improperly naturalized are demanding and insisting on certain rights to which they claim they are entitled because of their citizenship. I say it would be a great mistake to grant naturalization in a purely formal manner, long-distance naturalization, as it were, naturalization granted here in Ottawa perhaps three thousand or more miles away from the person who is applying for naturalization. I think the strictest kind of investigation should be made, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that investigation should be made by county court judges; I think they are eminently proper persons to conduct the investigation, and that they perform their duties in a very conscientious manner. I think it would be a great mistake for the Secretary of State at Ottawa, whether the present incumbent of the office or anyone else, to grant naturalization without some kind of personal examination of the applicant by some person who is qualified to
Naturalization Acts

make:it. I ask the minister what is he going to substitute for the investigation which has been made in the past by the county court judges, or is he going to have it all done here at Ottawa by correspondence? Is he going to take the recommendation of someone who says that the applicant is a fit and proper person to become a naturalized citizen of this country, or is he going to have a proper investigation made to see that the applicant is really entitled and is a proper person to become naturalized?


Mr. GERMAN:: All I know about this bill-


William Garland McQuarrie: I should like an answer to my question.


The CHAIRMAN:: Oh, the minister will answer the question.


William Manley German: I quite agree with the minister that three months is quite too long a time for an application for naturalization to be held up in the office of the clerk of the county court. It really does not give the general public any notice that application is being made because the general public does not visit the office of the clerk of the county court. But I cannot agree at all with the minister when he suggests that the investigation should be taken out of the hands of the county court judge and placed in the hands of an officer of the Mounted Police. If the minister is impeaching the integrity and the wisdom of the judges who are appointed by the Dominion government I would like him jto say so, but how any person can imagine that a member of the Mounted Police is more fitted to make an investigation as to the qualifications of a man to become naturalized than a county court judge I cannot possibly understand.
In our Niagara district we have very many foreigners from whom there is a continual stream of applications for naturalization. The notices are posted as the law requires, in the office of the clerk of the county court for three months. I say that is altogether too long, I cannot see the necessity for that length of time at all. What I would suggest is that a person who desires naturalization should go before a judge of the county court and be examined by him. The examination is not made in open court but in the jifdge's chambers. The applicant should submit himself to examination there, and if the judge of the county court reports to the Secretary of State that the man is entitled to naturalization, then he should become naturalized. That is a simple process, it is an inexpensive process, and it is a speedy process. If on

the other hand you have the investigation made by officers of the department, though I am quite sure that an officer of the department would make a very thorough and proper investigation, the investigation would be expensive, and you can see the time that would be lost if notice has to be sent to Ottawa and an officer of the department sent up there at the expense of the country to examine the applicant. Why should that expense be incurred when you have a judge of the county court there who is eminently capable of making the examination, is entirely impartial, and can make the examination at once?
To talk about an examination by an officer of the Mounted Police I submit is absolutely absurd. It is wrong; it should not be allowed. It is not even to be made by the officers; it does not say " officers ", it says by a member of the Mounted Police. I know that the Mounted Police is a very good, force composed of good men, intelligent men, but they are not by their training or their position fitted to make such an examination as is required in this case. I think it would be a great mistake if the department takes this examination out of the hands of the county court judges, who are appointed by this government. Let them reduce the time, let the investigation be made at once by a judge of the county court. He will make an impartial report, an intelligent, report, a report that will have the confidence of the people of this country.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In answer to my hon. friend for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) who asked what we proposed to substitute for the investigation that is now held by county court judges, I would say that we do not propose to substitute any investigation for the investigation that is now made by the judges. From the experience we have had since this act has been in operation, the report from the judge is of absolutely no use to the department.


Mr. BOYS:: Why does the minister sai' that?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will tell my hon. friend if he will have patience.


William Alves Boys: I have seen a good many examinations take place in court, and they are very thorough and reliable.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have too. I do not say that all the reports are not of some use. The act under which we are now working, the act passed in 1914, for which I am not responsible, provides that this investigation is to be held

Naturalization Acts
by the judge. Now from the reports we receive, the investigation that is held by the judges is not of such a character that the department which is charged with the responsibility of issuing the certificate can act upon it.


Mr. MARTELL:: Why?


Arthur Bliss Copp: First, because the judges are only supposed to hold a very cursory examination under the act. Second, during the first years of the operation of this act the judges were paid for doing this work, and at the present time they are not being paid for doing it. That takes away a very great deal of the interest that the judges-for they are only human after all-might otherwise have in making the investigation if the whole responsibility were upon them. The Judges' Act precludes the judges from being paid any remuneration for doing this work, and under the act they realize that their examination and investigation is only intended to be cursory, and the report that is made by the judges contains a few remarks, approved or disapproved.
I would draw the attention of my hon. friend for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys), and my hon. friend for Welland (Mr. German) to this, that irrespective of the judge's report the same investigation has to be carried on by the department under the act. I appreciate the views my hon. friend holds and, to some extent, sympathize with him, because when this matter was first brought to my attention I thought it was a very proper thing to continue the investigation by the judge; but having had fifteen or sixteen months' experience in the administration of the act I find this procedure to be an absolute waste of time and of money. When the report comes from the judge we have to make a specific inquiry into the character and standing of the person -who had applied for naturalization. What do we do? We first apply to the Department of Immigration and we find out when the man entered the country, whether he entered legally, whether his name is on record at the port of entry, and whether he has been a resident of Canada long enough to become naturalized'.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The judge should find all that out.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He does not do so and the department has to get this information. We have to find out the character and standing o-reputation of the applicant during the time he has been a resident of Canada. In addition to making inquiry from the Department
of Immigration we may also conduct an investigation through the Mounted Police.


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: Are they scattered all over?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: In every province?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes. We also correspond with the local police, if necessary, in order to learn the required facts. Now, what I say to my hon. friend-and I think any legal gentleman will agree with me-is that in many cases a judge in a certain part of the province of Ontario, for example, after making an inquiry and examination will approve of an application, whereas a judge in another part of the country, with the same evidence before him, will disapprove of it. The department, as I say, makes this examination and inquiry and in many cases, notwithstanding that reports have come in from the judges approving of naturalization, we, after our own inquiry turn down the application and refuse to issue naturalization certificates. In other cases when the judges have sent in a report disapproving of the application of a man to become a British subject we, after careful inquiry, have been convinced that he is a fit and proper person to be naturalized and issue the certificate accordingly. Therefore, I contend that the time occupied in making this inquiry through the judge, under the law as it now stands, is absolutely wasted; the matter comes back to the department in the end. Such, at any rate, has been the experience of the department during the years that elapsed since 1914. The department must take the whole responsibility and it is entirely in its discretion to say whether the naturalization certificate should be issued or not.
In the larger centres the same difficulty does not arise, but it becomes a serious matter in the case of an applicant in the West who may reside from one to two hundred [DOT] miles away from the place where he has to make application to the court. Under the law as it stands to-day the application has to be made to the clerk of the court and it is hung up in the clerk's office for three long months. The clerk may fail to send the applicant notice of the date when he has to be present to substantiate his application, but whether he notifies him or not the fact remains, that the applicant may have to travel from one to two hundred miles for that purpose because he has to be present in person to be examined by the judge.

Naturalization Acts


Lewis Herbert Martell: When that application is made at the opening days of the regular session of the court, supported by an affidavit, is it not a fact that the application remains open until shortly before the closing of the court so that it may be open to any person who desires to do so to take objection; and does not the judge make a thorough inquiry into the qualifications of the applicant to become a British subject? Is not that the case and is it not a fair procedure?


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend is labouring
under the delusion that we are still acting under the old Naturalization Act prior to 1914.


Lewis Herbert Martell: That was a good act.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But it is not the law to-day.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The procedure under that act was all right.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But the law has been entirely changed. Now, to continue with my statement. The applicant, as I say, may have to travel one or two hundred miles in order to reach the appointed place where he is to be examined by the judge. During my experience of the administration of this act we have had hundreds of complaints from applicants who declared that they had made their application in due and proper form but had heard nothing more about it, and wrote to inquire why the naturalization certificate had not been granted. Now, under the present law, when a clerk refuses, or neglects, to forward the report of the judge to the department matters are held up. Then the department has to undertake its own examination, and that has frequently happened in my experience. But the point is, that upon the applicant the responsibility is very often placed of travelling very long distances in order to appear before the judge and prove his case. So that, to have a proper national Naturalization Act the only thing to do is to bring into force the amendments proposed, and I am convinced, from the experience -which I have had that they will prove of great advantage to the country and will be most advantageous in the administration of the act.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does the minister not
think that a better title for this legislation would be "An Act to abolish lawyers and establish more red tape in Ottawa"?


Mr. HANSON:: I have had some considerable experience in dealing with the naturalization acts of 1914 and 1920 and I beg to assure the committee that I have never met with any of the difficulties that have been enumerated

by the Secretary of State (Mr. - Copp). In addition to the posting of the notice of the application in the office of the clerk of the county court, as I recollect the statute, it is necessary that a copy of the notice should also be posted in the post office in the place where the applicant resides. That provision may have been repealed.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It was repealed two years ago..


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very well. . It may be
questionable as to whether three months is too long. I do not think it is. However, it may be open to debate. Some reasonable notice should be given. The vital thing about the act of 1920, in my judgment, i-the investigation made by the county court judge, and if these judges have not done their duty in the past I must express very great surprise. Personally, I believe the county court judges have gone into this matter and have made these investigations, in so far as they have come under my observation, in the province of New Brunswick with the very greatest care, and I do not think for a minute that the question of pay or no pay has ever entered into the matter. If it has, such has not been my experience. Now, what actually happens? At a time appointed the applicant does appear, and it is a most vital thing that he should do so, and is put upon the stand. He may or may not employ a solicitor to act in his behalf. I say, without any reservation, that he should have such legal assistance in order to guide him. The first thing determined by the judge is the applicant's knowledge of either of the two languages of this country and he is in a much better position, than officials sitting behind a mahogany desk in Ottawa, to ascertain a man's knowledge of either the English or the French language. With all due deference, that is one thing the Secretary of State, or his officials, could not nearly so well determine, and it seems to me that an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages should be a sine qua non of citizenship. What I think has been the difficulty with respect to investigations by county court judges has been that the reports have not been elaborate enough.' That is a very simple matter to cure. If a letter were sent by the Secretary of State to any one of the county court judges asking him to make a proper report, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred a proper report on the applicant would or should be sent back. In addition to that, the applicant is subject to cross-examination by the county court judge acting as a sort of King's proctor. I have seen that invari-

Naturalization Acts
ably done. I remember on one occasion an applicant was put through a series of questions with respect to what he knew about the method of government and politics in this country. I understand on one occasion an applicant was asked how he would vote at the next election, and he said that he would vote for the party which gave him the most money. In that case naturally the county court judge refused to grant naturalization.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The hon. member would be sure ef his vote, on that occasion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not looking for the vote. I do not have to buy votes. The hon. member himself belongs to a party which has done more to corrupt the electorate in New Brunswick than any other party in the history of this country. He only needs to go back to the records of some of his leaders in regard to that matter.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member should discuss the matter on its merits.
Mr. HANSON. I will, but I did not start this; I am not seeking to lower the plane of the discussion, I was citing that only as an illustration of a case in which a county court judge refused to make a favourable report. In addition to the examination and crossexamination of the applicant, county court judges whom I have seen operate under the act, have required that at least two reputable citizens in the community in which the applicant resides, should attend and give evidence corroborative of the character of the applicant and his fitness for British citizenship, which, after all, should not be regarded cheaply. My hon. friend and some hon. members to my left have stated that it is a hardship to ask a man to travel a hundred miles to attend an investigation personally before a county court judge. If British citizenship amounts to anything, if it is a thing of value, it is worth a journey of a hundred miles.


Robert Forke: That may not be necessary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is worth a journey of a hundred miles to go before a county court judge, where a personal investigation may be made, where the applicant may be seen by a judicial authority who has an open mind and who is prepared to hand out even justice. I would deplore if this measure should carry if it has the effect of abolishing the investigation before a county court judge. I want to say a word for county court judges. I believe the county court judges in my province are men of honour and integrity, and that they will do their full duty as citizens under any statute that may be imposed upon them,
without regard to the petty questions of a fee or a mile. My hon. friend says that the examinations are cursory. He produces no proof of that statement. He cannot possibly know that of his personal knowledge. What he probably bases that statement upon is the shortness, the meagreness of the reports sent in. That is probably true; but that is a matter which, as I stated a moment ago, can and should be corrected. There is no reason why a county court judge should not make a full and true report of everything that transpires ''before him. As a matter of fact, now that there are, in most cases, stenographers in the county courts, there is no reason why the reports should not be accompanied by a transcript of the shorthand records taken of the examination. In New Brunswick, so far as I know, these examinations are never conducted in chambers; they are done in open court, and 1 believe it would be a distinctly retrograde step if the investigation before a county court judge were done away with, especially in view of the fact that there is nothing to take-its place except the ipse dixit of some official in the city of Ottawa.


Robert Forke: I think I value the privilege of British citizenship as highly as any one. My hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) has referred to the fact that a man should be willing to travel a hundred miles in order to become a British citizen. I agree with him, but it may not be necessary to travel a hundred miles to do so. Consequently, if you can make this easier, so much the better. I am not very much interested in what happened in the past in regard to naturalization of citizens in this Dominion; I am more interested in what is going to happen in the future. Hon. members on different sides of the House seem to take a great interest in informing those who have newly come here just how iniquitous this matter was in days gone by. Well, we are looking for better times. I have had some little experience as regards naturalization papers, and I cannot subscribe to the idea that the judges have been negligent in their duties. I have always found judges willing and ready to make the necessary examination and to see that an applicant receives his citizenship if he is entitled to it. As regards asking questions to find out whether applicants are fit for citizenship or not, I am just as well pleased that that is not applied to all voters who would vote, because they would sometimes be in a pretty difficult position if they had to answer questions as regards what qualifies a man to vote and his fitness to vote. I do not, however, believe in making the test too easy.

Naturalization Acts


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no test under this legislation.


Robert Forke: I am not saying anything about that; if the hon. member will have patience, I will, maybe, come out all right in the end. I think this puts too much power in the hands of the minister to give naturalization papers. Large blocks
4 p.m. of foreigners might be waiting to be naturalized, and it might be convenient-ministers are only human-to have those men naturalized at a certain time. Ii; would be more advantageous and better for the country if some examination should take place before a county court judge, who, I am satisfied, would do his duty in the matter. I have no doubt that the minister's intention is all right to simplify the matter and to do away with extra trouble; but after all, if an applicant is really anxious for British citizenship, he will take the trouble to get his application in to the clerk of the court, to go through the necessary preliminaries and ' to come before a county court judge, in order to get his British citizenship. I would certainly be in favour of having something between the applicant and the minister, in order to prevent the applicant from receiving naturalization unless he was thoroughly entitled to it. I have known several cases in which applicants have filed their applications in the county court, gone through all the preliminaries and got their citizenship without any extra trouble. It might be all right to have some method of getting an examination made of a man or woman who wanted to be naturalized and who was living at some distance from the county court, so that the evidence might be submitted to the judge. I do not know whether that would be a feasible plan or not. But, after all, most county court judges hold sittings at not such very great distances from people residing in a county. In the older provinces, like Manitoba-because Manitoba is getting pretty old now-there is no hardship at all as regards any applicant going before a county court judge.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Do I understated the minister to say that under the present law, no matter what the judge's opinion may be, the Secretary of State has absolute discretion to grant or refuse naturalization?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will read the clause to my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I have read it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is the provision:
The granting of a certificate of naturalization to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State-


Arthur Meighen: What is the minister
reading from?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am reading from subsection 3.


Arthur Meighen: Of what act?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am quoting from page 58 of the act.


Arthur Meighen: Of the 1914 act?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.
The granting of a certificate of naturalization ^to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate.
and no appeal shall lie from his decision.
That is the law to-day.	.


Arthur Meighen: What is the origin of the section my hon. friend is reading? He has read from a pamphlet. From what act does he get that section?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Imperial Act.


Arthur Meighen: But we are governed by sections 23 and 24 of our own act, which the hon. member wants to repeal.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Section 24 reads-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear; that is the one.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Secretary of State of Canada may thereupon, in his absolute discretion, issue a certificate of naturalization and send the same to the clerk of the court to whom the application for naturalization was made.


Arthur Meighen: Now I should like to argue the matter with the minister.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That section is eliminated by the proposed amendment.


Arthur Meighen: What the minister read before was not the law; what he has read now is; and that is the law he wants to repeal. It is not, however, the law that he cited to the House. The Secretary, of State under the act to-day has not the discretion to grant or refuse, no matter what may be the judgment of the county court judge. If he receives a recommendation from the county court judge in accordance with section 23, he may act upon that recommendation or he may not, but the recommendation is one for naturalization. If the county court judge after his examination finds that the applicant is a fit and proper person for naturalization he so certifies, under section 23, to the Secretary of State, and then section 24 applies. "The Secretary of State may thereupon, in his absolute discretion, issue a certificate."

Naturalization Acts


Mr. JACOBS:: "May."


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, he "may."


Samuel William Jacobs: And may not.


Arthur Meighen: But, unless he gets a favourable report from the judge he cannot issue it. That is the point. But if these two sections are repealed the Secretary of State is lord of all he surveys in relation to naturalization. Without these sections he could issue certificates by the thousand the week before an election and place. them in the hands of candidates in various counties. That could be done; he would not require the en-dorsation of a judge at all. He would not require recommendation from anyone; he would be simply master of the situation. Surely the minister does not solemnly propose that to the House of Commons.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am doing it now.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is not. I should like him to produce to this House a case in which he has issued a naturalization certificate without the authority of a judge under section 23.


Samuel William Jacobs: He can withhold it indefinitely.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, he can decline to issue a certificate, but he cannot issue one without the authority of a judge under section 23. And he wants that barrier removed so that he may be able to do as he pleases and issue certificates here, there and everywhere at his own discretion. Now, surely he does not contend any longer that he can,
. without the authorization of a judge, issue a certificate of naturalization. Let me read section 23:
If the court decides that the alien is a fit and proper person to be naturalized and possesses the required qualifications a certified copy of such decision shall be transmitted by the Clerk of the Court to the Secretary of State together with the application, and such other papers, documents and reports as may be required.
Under section 24:	,
The Secretary of State of Canada may thereupon, in his absolute discretion, issue a certificate of naturalization.
That is, he may or he may not. But he neither may nor may not unless section 23 has been complied with and a judge has made his report. Surely the minister would not argue anything different from that. I am satisfied his deputy would not, in any court of justice. What is the effect of the word " thereupon?" This word means, upon section 23 being complied with; and section 23 is not complied with until a judge has
reported to the effect set out therein-not a negative report but such a report as is described in the section. He places this report in the hands of the Secretary of State, and with that report favourable to the applicant in his possession the Secretary of State may or may not grant the certificate.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Suppose it is unfavourable?


Arthur Meighen: Then he has no power to grant the certificate at all, because he has not such a report as is referred to in the section. In fact, the judge does not need to make an unfavourable report; if he makes such a report it is wholly something that does not affect the power of the Secretary of State at all. The Secretary of State must have a favourable report in accordance with section 23 before he can exercise any discretion at all. Having that report he may or may not grant the certificate. Now, I really should like to hear the minister's argument if he thinks that I am not correct.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My deputy informs me that after the report of the judge has been received, many a time inquiry is made and a certificate is issued irrespective of whether the judge reports for or against the applicant.


Arthur Meighen: Read the authority.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I may say to my hon. friend for York (Mr. Hanson) who made a few remarks-[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Surely the minister does not want to let this matter go at that and say that the department has been doing as he suggests; If it has done anything of the kind it has done so against the law. Would the minister read the two sections to which I have referred him.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My deputy informs me that we are doing it in accordance with the law passed by my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


William Alves Boys: Does the minister contend that he can issue a certificate without first having a report from the judge? Does he say that he can issue it on his own initiative?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, not without the report. But after the report does come in we can act as we see fit; and that is why I say that the report is of no value.


Arthur Meighen: Even if the report is a negative one?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.
Naturalization Acts


Arthur Meighen: But how can a negative report comply with section 23? Really, it does not require a lawyer to see the significance of these sections. " If the court decides that the alien is a fit and proper person"- not if the court decides that he is not fit. If the court decides that he is a fit and proper person to be naturalized, and possesses the required qualifications, a certified copy of that decision is transmitted to the Secretary of State, and that being done, the Secretary of State can act. I impress upon the minister again that it is only by compliance with the judge's decision, that the applicant is a fit and proper person, that " thereupon " the Secretary of State may grant the certificate.


Samuel William Jacobs: My information is that this practice has been followed ever since the law came into effect under the regime of my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. gentleman would likely have some information about that, but it would only date back a limited number of months.


Samuel William Jacobs: A year.


Arthur Meighen: If any such practice has been followed it has been in direct violation of the law, and what we ought to do is to comply with the law we have instead of seeking to get rid of the safeguards it provides.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am administering the act as it has all along been administered and my deputy informs me that it is the law that has been followed by the department ever since the act was passed.


Arthur Meighen: I should like the minister to produce a case in support of that assertion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Here is a case before me. Here is a judge of the county court who refused to decide an application as to the qualification of applicants for land patents, challenging the legality of the amendments to the Lands Act.


Arthur Meighen: Who did?


Arthur Bliss Copp: A judge of the county court. He has refused to receive applications from fully qualified applicants because of their racial origin. These are the reports we have in our office. One judge refused to recognize section 10. My Under Secretary of State informs me now, in spite of what my right hon. friend says, that the law is and has been administered by the department, that, irrespective of what report the judges may make

after their inquiries, we have the sole discretion to say whether or not a certificate shall issue.


Arthur Meighen: I do not wish to reflect at all on the legal judgment of those under my hon. friend. I do not know what the legal department of the Secretary of State's office is. I know the deputy is a lawyer himself. But I should like the Secretary of State to produce an opinion from the Minister of Justice or from the Deputy Minister of Justice to this House to the effect that under sections 23 and 24 the Secretary of State has any power to issue a certificate unless there is first a favourable report from the judge, or a report complying with section 22.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Under Secretary of State informs me that the section I read is part of our act.


Arthur Meighen: Of the Imperial act?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, of our act-the act under which we are working to-day.


Arthur Meighen: How is that part of our act? It is contained in the Imperial act.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is part of our act.


Arthur Meighen: Where is it made a part of our act?


William Alves Boys: What is the number of the section in our act?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Subsection 3 of section 2 of our act of 1914.


Arthur Meighen: What section of the act of 1914 embodies the Imperial act?


Mr. EULER:: I have here a copy of the act respecting British naturalization of aliens, assented to on 12th June, 1914. This is chapter 44. On page 2, subsection 3 of section 2 is in this form:
The grant of a certificate of naturalization to any such allien shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State of Canada, and he may, with or without assigning any reason give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is the same section as I read.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, but I have not got the exact connection yet. Certainly it is clear under sections 23 and 24, which the minister seeks to repeal, that he cannot exercise such discretion; but as the act now stands I would say that the general provision of section 2, subsection 3, would have to be complied with and be subordinated to the particular provisions of sections 23 and 24.

Naturalization Acts


Arthur Bliss Copp: They must be read together; one does not override the other.


Arthur Meighen: I know; but the particular provision prevails over the general when they are read together. I cannot understand section 2 being passed along with sections 23 and 24, because the latter clearly specifies the condition under which the Secretary of State may act.	.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It was passed in 1914 as I read to the committee. My right hon. friend attempted to lead the committee to believe that I was quoting from an act that was not part of our legislation. It is part of our legislation and was passed by the government of which my right hon. friend was a prominent member.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. minister should not say that. I asked him what he was reading from, he said the Imperial act, and I took him at his word.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is taken from the Imperial act. My right hon. friend attempted to tell the committee that I was asking to be given a power that I did not have under the present legislation.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is right.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I answered him by saying that I had this same power under an act passed by his own government some years ago. I am not finding fault with that act, it may be all right, but to-day when we are asking for the repeal of the section that I mentioned, we are asking for no greater power for the State department than is conferred upon it by the act passed by my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I do not agree with the minister at all. He read from what he said first was the Imperial act. It turns out now that that is embodied in part 2 of our act of 1914. This seems to be the case, but I have ' not had time to review the relationship between that section 2 and sections 23 and 24. Under the latter sections the Secretary of State could not naturalize anyone unless he had first the judge's recommendation.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I did not say I could.


Arthur Meighen: Without the inquiry
which I have not yet had an opportunity to make I would be of opinion that sections 23 and 24, being specific, would be the dominating sections over section 2; and that if the minister has been acting under section 2 alone without relation to sections 23 and 24 he has been acting illegally. Now he says he is not asking for any power which he has not had
all along. I say he is; he is asking for power to issue naturalization without the necessary preliminary-a judicial investigation. If for the sake of argument we assume his view of the law is right-I do not think it is-and that after the judicial investigation he could do what he liked even though the judge reported against the applicant, he is asking now for power he never had before. Though he might do as he pleased before, according to his arguments he had at least to precede his action with a judicial investigation and report. That judicial investigation and report was a public document capable of production at any time at the call of this House, a public document by which the public and this House could judge of the rightness or wrongness of his action, a public document of record prepared by a judge of our courts. Now the minister wants to do away with that precaution which parliament imposed, he wants to do away with the necessity of any preliminary investigation and report by a judicial body. Certainly that is asking for a power that he did not have before; it is asking for power to enable him to exercise his duties without the restraints the act imposed before. Even on his own argument that he had an absolute right to give such final decision as he might deem advisable, those restraints were there before. Pass this legislation and those restraints are gone I repeat that I shall be surprised if I have to come to the conclusion that this is the law. Though it may be the opinion of Mr. Newcombe, that section 2 would prevail even over the conditions stipulated in sections 23 and 24, I submit this is bad legislation. The minister says, "The judges' investigations have been no good and I am going to conduct them after this bill is passed through the Mounted Police." Investigations into the legal qualifications of a resident of Canada to be naturalized as a British subject! Was there ever a matter more fitting for judicial inquiry than this? And he says the reason the judges have been careless is because they have not been paid. I do not think his words will be accepted as a compliment by the bench of Canada. They have been paid for this work just as they have been paid for conducting the courts in Canada, and they are paid to-day for their work as inquirers, investigators, under the Naturalization Act in exactly the same way as they are paid for deciding whether a culprit goes to jail or not. All is embraced within their duties, and to suggest that because there is not some special pay applicable to this is to do no credit to the bench, and, I am afraid, to do none to the minister. I have

Naturalization Acts

had something to do with the work of the judges under this act, in the way of watching it at least, and I have observed that the judges exercise just as much care in connection with their duties in this respect as they do in any other-indeed, a lot more care than could possibly be exercised by the minister or by his deputy on questions such as this. The act calls for giving notice to the public in the immediate territory where the applicant resides. It is notice that the public are almost bound to see, because there must be posting, not behind the door of the court house, but conspicuously in the court house. That is the provision of section 20.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will my right hon. friend read that section?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. It says:
The application shall be delivered at the office of the clerk or other proper officer of the court during office hours, and such application shall be posted by such clerk or other proper officer in a conspicuous place in his office.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In his office, not in the court house.


Arthur Meighen: In a conspicuous place, not behind the door. That would not be conspicuous.


Samuel William Jacobs: When the door is closed it is conspicuous.


Arthur Meighen: The section continues:
The applicant shall also post up a copy of such application in a conspicuous place in the post office nearest to his place of residence.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is repealed.


Arthur Meighen: Repealed in 1920? Then I would recommend that it be put in again, if it is thoroughness of investigation that the minister wants. At all events, there must be posting in a conspicuous place. In that way everyone gets to know who wants to know, and undoubtedly a great many get to know of these applications for naturalization. Time is allowed within which inquiry may be made and objection may be taken. All this procedure serves as a deterrent against fraudulent naturalization by residents. A man is not going to put in his application knowing that he will have to go before a judge, take his oath and submit to cross-examination-he is not going to do it if it is a fraudulent application. The chance is very slight that anyone will fraudulently set to work to get naturalization for the purposes of the franchise. But remove all this, and simply have a sort of subterranean investigation as to which there will be no report that the public can ever get, some sort of investi-

gation like a detective department would get under way to find out the character of a supposed culprit-substitute such an investigation for this open, public inquiry before a judge, and it merely says to all and sundry: If you want naturalization, depend on the Secretary of State. It simply puts the whole country in the hands of the Secretary of State as to who shall have the franchise. The minister says he has the power anyway. I do not think he has. But if there is any fault with the present legislation it is that the restrictions are too few. Let us not wipe away the restraints that there are.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My right hon. friend has, as usual, resorted in his argument to a great deal of special pleading. He first thought that the sections I read were not a part of our act; we now find that they are.


Arthur Meighen: The minister thought they were not.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The provisions were properly passed and have been acted upon for the last eight years, whether rightly or wrongly is a question that is open to discussion. Personally I believe they are proper provisions. Sections 23 and 24 provide that a report must be made by the judges of our county court. But what I was chiefly pointing out was that this report filed by a judge of the county court was of no particular value. My right hon. friend rushes to the support of the county judges, who, it is intimated, I have villainously attacked. Well, I do not think I said anything in derogation of them, but I do say that, those judges, realizing that their report has, in the final analysis, no effect on the question on whether or not a naturalization certificate shall be granted, pay no particular attention to the holding of an inquiry. The hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Hanson) also rushes to the defence of the judges of New Brunswick whom I have, in his opinion, maligned in suggesting that they did not make the investigation as properly and as carefully as they would do if they were responsible for determining whether or not the certificate should be issued. If I understand the argument of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, it is that the law should be left as it is and that the applicant should have a lawyer to go to the court and plead his case for him. I contend it is the duty of this parliament and of the State department to give persons who come to this country every possible facility for acquiring the rights of citizenship.


Robert Forke: Does the minister believe that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Naturalization Acts
would be more reliable than a county court judge in the matter of making a report?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The cases do not compare at all; it is not a question between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the county court judges. The county court judge inquires into the situation in a casual way and makes a report. We may not refer to the Mounted Police; we may not refer to any particular body. But when the application comes to us, marked "approved" or "disapproved" by the judge of the county court before whom the applicant appeared, we make inquiry; we go to the immigration office. If we think it necessary we refer the matter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in order to ascertain whether the applicant had been concerned in any criminal acts during his residence here, about which the county court jucfge might know nothing. Suppose a man from a town in Saskatchewan becomes implicated in bootlegging operations, the selling of narcotic drugs, or any other criminal act. He goes to Alberta; he has lived five years in Canada. How would a judge of the county court in Alberta know this man's record in Saskatchewan? So far as I have been able to follow the work of the Mounted Police, I am confident that they can judge pretty well whether a man who makes application for naturalization is a fit and proper person to become a British subject.


Robert Forke: I will not interfere again; but the suspicion in my mind would be that this change would place too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I do not mean that personally at all; it would be the same no matter what government was in power. But I think it is a dangerous thing to place power in the hands of the Secretary of State under which large sections of the foreign population could, on particular occasions, be practically enfranchised wholesale. That is my idea.
. Mr. BOYS: I suggest that there is no conflict between section 2 and section 19. Section 2 says:
The Secretary of State of Canada may grant a certificate of naturalization to an alien who makes an application for the purpose.
Then, section 19 states what the alien has to do in making his application. It says:
An alien desiring to be naturalized shall apply-
Not to the Secretary of State.
-for a decision establishing that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this act.
Then follow the various paragraphs pointing out the procedure in the different provinces. That read with section 2 is quite consistent.
140J
Section 2 says he shall make application for the purpose, and section 19 says he shall make that application for a decision in Ontario to the Court of General Sessions, and in other provinces in other ways. Does the minister contend that there are two distinct powers, one whereby an application can be made to the Court of General Sessions in Ontario, and the other being made quite independently altogether to the Secretary of State?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The applications are not that
way, but the powers.


William Alves Boys: That is what I am trying to
argue. I would ask the minister's serious-consideration of what I am trying to suggest. If that was the intention of section 2,-that independent power should be given to the Secretary of State,-would it not say so? But it does not say any such thing. It says that the Secretary of State may grant the certificate to an alien who makes an application for that purpose. Surely the question that one must ask at once is, how is he going to make that inquiry? And I ask the minister if he can show me any other section of the act but 19 which outlines the manner in which that application is to be made. I do not think he can, and when you return to section 19 you find there that the application in Ontario is to be made to the Court of General Sessions, in Quebec to the Circuit Court, and so on-I need not read all the list. When the judge of the court in Ontario proceeds under that section he has to see that the applicant satisfies him of what is required by subsections (a) (b) and (c) of No. 2. If that is done the judge then certifies that he is a fit and proper person for naturalization; that report goes to the Secretary of State, and on the strength of that information got from the report of the judge the Secretary of State then has his jurisdiction. I do not contend for a moment that he cannot either grant or refuse the application. He can, but what I do contend is that he does not get any jurisdiction of any kind, sort or description to deal with the application of an alien to become naturalized unless there is in the first instance the report of a judge, and if the report of a judge is not made and sent to him he cannot deal with the naturalization of an alien at all. The minister nods his head in assent.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Absolutely.


William Alves Boys: Then if he does, he at once
admits-


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.
Naturalization Acts


William Alves Boys: Just hear what I am going to say first. He admits that he has no independent or separate jurisdiction to deal with applications made direct to him.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


William Alves Boys: If we are together in that, I cannot see how there is any room for doubt, because section 19 provides the procedure and says how it is to be done. There is absolutely nowhere else in Ontario that you can make application except to the Court of General Sessions. Now I want to make one observation regarding the procedure there. I am not going to suggest that the minister was saying anything derogatory of our judges. He may not know how they proceed in Ontario. I know something of the procedure in Ontario and especially in my own county. I have sat many times in the Court of General Sessions when these applications are made, and I want to tell the committee how it is done. The applicants are there in person. They are sworn, examined by the county judge, the evidence is taken in shorthand, and the county judge requires one or two reputable citizens from the neighbourhood in which the applicant resides to be there and certify. If that procedure is taken I cannot see how the minister can find fault with the decision of a judge. Does he suggest that in the province of Ontario the county judges frequently make reports which upon investigation the department disregard and reach a totally different conclusion? I can understand that might be the case in respect to outlying districts perhaps in the Northwest but I very much doubt if it is so in Ontario, and so far as that province is concerned I want to say to the minister I am satisfied from the care that is exercised in working out the provisions of this act that it would be unwise to make [DOT]a change so far as the older provinces of the Dominion are concerned. I certainly do not think the minister has power under section 2, which as a matter of fact so far as I have been able to see from a quick reading, is a verbatim copy of the provisions of the Imperial act and is of course our law, but it must be read in conjunction with the procedure provided for in section 19.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend has argued that we have no jurisdiction when the report comes from the judge. That is true; I have never hinted anything else; that is our jurisdiction. But what I say is that under our law when the report comes from the judge to whom the application was made we can use our own discretionary power whether to accept that report or not.
[M. Copp.l


Arthur Meighen: But it must be a report from the judge in accordance with the act, and the only report he can make in accordance with the act is under section 23..


Arthur Bliss Copp: But under the other sections we can accept it or not.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Alves Boys: You can accept it or not, certainly.	[DOT]


Arthur Bliss Copp: And act as soon as the report is in from the judge irrespective of whether that report is for or against granting naturalization.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. As soon as the report is received by the department whethei it is approved or not, that gives the department jurisdiction to act.
We can act one way or the other whichever way we decide.


William Alves Boys: Under what section is the
county court judge required to report if he is not in favour of naturalization? If you read section 23-and there is no other section dealing with it-you will see that you only are apprised of the matter if the judge finds he is a fit and proper person to be naturalized. If he is not a fit and proper person a report does not reach your department.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Scores of them reach the department.


William Alves Boys: I would be glad if the minister would show me under what section a judge is required to make any report if his report is unfavourable. Section 23 is as follows-I need not take the trouble to read the previous sections which provide how the application is *o be posted, the opportunity for opposition, proof for qualification, and so on; when that is all done and the investigation has taken place, section 23 provides the next step, and what is it:
If the court decides that the alien is a fit and proper person to be naturalized and possesses the required qualifications, a certified copy of such decision shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of State of Canada together with the application-
That is where the application is received.
-and such other papers, documents and reports as may be required by any regulation made hereunder.
The minister will see at once that the report only reaches his department when it is favourable. I do not say there is no other section, I do not profess to be an expert, but I ask the minister to show me any section which provides for transmitting a report when

Naturalization Acts
it is not favourable. If there is no such section he would not hear of the matter unless the report is favourable.


Samuel William Jacobs: Suppose the judge goes wrong in his law. That sometimes happens, not often, of course, but it has occurred, and he makes a report to the effect that this man has resided less than six years, when the law only calls for five, is the Secretary of State obliged to accept that report and refuse to issue a certificate?


Arthur Meighen: He is under this act.


Samuel William Jacobs: That would be absurd. That would be contrary to the law.


William Alves Boys: What I said was that a report would only reach the department when it was a favourable report. The judge may go wrong; they are all mortal; I am not saying they are infallible, but the point is the Secretary of State never hears of the application unless it is reported on favourably.


Samuel William Jacobs: As I understand it, the report is sent forward.


William Alves Boys: I have asked the minister to show me the section. I am not saying it is not there; it may be; but let us see it. I have shown the section which provides for naturalization on a favourable report.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In the past fifteen months hundreds of applications have come forward from the judges marked "not approved".


Arthur Meighen: But what difference does that make? These are beyond the purview of the act altogether.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend will wait just a moment. When that report is received it gives the Secretary of State authority to act under section 23.


Arthur Meighen: Where is this section?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Secretary of State acts upon the report. When that report from the judge is received it gives him authority to act.


Arthur Meighen: There is where the minister is wrong, and I am sure that if he will consult his deputy he will find he is wholly wrong; there can be no question about it at all. The minister mentions that the practice is to get all sorts of reports as provided for by the act. Why, he may get letters from judges-all sorts of things. But only when he gets something which under the act empowers him to exercise his functions does he exercise them. Now the act says-in regard to the application coming through this
channel-that the minister's duty arises under the condition, and that one condition only, that under section 23 the judge sends a report that the man is a fit and proper person to become naturalized. The minister has the full discretion to act but he only has the discretion when section 23, and the other sections, are complied with; until section 23 is complied with he has no discretion whatever. Now, once his discretion arises he can say yes or he can say no, but he gets no discretion whatever until the judge sends in his report that the applicant is a fit and proper person. There is no lawyer-not even my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs)- but would say the same thing; there is no other interpretation possible under this section.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Whatever may be the outcome of the legal discussion it would seem as if this amendment looks in the direction of more highly centralized authority, and very arbitrary authority at that. If I understood the Secretary of State aright the judge's report has no effect whatever in the final decision. If that is so the amendments placed before this House ought to look in the other direction altogether-that is towards very definitely giving the recommendation of the judges a place and weight in the final decision. I think it would be no less than an outrage if we allowed entrance to citizenship in Canada to be placed solely in the hands of one man. I am not reflecting in any way upon the present occupant of the office of Secretary of State-or on the occupant of that office any more than on the occupant of any other office-but it must surely be conceded that the question of whether or not a man should become a citizen of Canada ought not to be left to the absolute discretion of any one individual.
Further, the present legislation would seem not only to give this great power to one individual but it would also give to this same individual the right to disfranchise any citizen -a situation equally serious. According to the act of 1920:	,
The Governor in Council shall by order revoke a certificate of naturalization granted by the Secretary of State of Canada under this act, or granted under any Naturalization Act heretofore in force in Canada in any case in which he is, upon the report of the Secretary of State of Canada, satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted either-
(a) has, during any war in which His Majesty is engaged unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy-	,
and so on. And
(c) was not of good character at the date of the
grant of the certificate.
Naturalization Acts

Now it is obvious to anyone that it may be comparatively easy to say with regard to any particular citizen that he was not of good character five years previously. In that case, without any trial whatever, without any court coming to a decision on the matter in any form, the individual who has imagined himself to be a citizen of this country would thereby have withdrawn from him all the rights of citizenship. That, it seems to me, is an arbitrary power that is against all the ideas of British constitutional liberty that we have had in the past. To have made a change in that regard would seem to me to be something that might very well be brought before us at this time. But that provision still exists, and without any change in that particular clause we are being asked here to vote in favour of a further extension of this power to one individual.
But I would like particularly to call the attention of the House to the effect of this kind of provision and of this kind of procedure on the immigrant who comes to this country. We have tens of thousands of aliens scattered throughout the Canadian northwest. Many of them have come from other lands where they had exercised the rights of citizenship. They have been told that they could become free citizens of Canada. But for this they must wait five years-surely long enough. I should like, if I could, to get away from the official atmosphere of this House and ask you what effect it has upon these immigrants if, when they do make application for citizenship, they are treated more or less as though they were criminals, and mounted policemen sent around to investigate their character and their manner of life during the previous five years. There may be, it is quite true, an occasional criminal amongst them. I do not deny that; but I take it that we ought not in any sense whatever to regard prospective citizens as probably criminal. Surely the very essence of the British law is that a man ought to be regarded as innocent until he is proven guilty; he ought to be regarded as a good citizen until some definite charge is laid against him. Coming before the county court is a dignified proceeding. The people in the neighbourhood of the applicant's home have a chance of registering their opinion of his character. The judge is a man who is able, presumably, to give a disinterested opinion upon the evidence presented. There is no imputation whatever, there is no inference, that the applicant is anything but a desirable alien citizen honourably seeking to acquire citizenship in this new land. Any change in the procedure which would make it even possible

for the Secretary of State to send in an outsider to make inquiries among the neighbours of the applicant as to whether, possibly, he had done something that was wrong is a distinct lowering of the standard of citizenship which we ought to encourage in this country. For the sake of these tens of thousands of immigrants-many of whom those of us from the West know personally-I would ask that the citizenship of Canada should be placed on a higher plane; if so, I think that coming Canadians would, if necessary, gladly travel a hundred miles rather than submit to the inquisitorial methods proposed by these amendments.


Mr. BAXTER:: I do not propose to discuss at all the technical questions which have arisen under the existing act. I am inclined to think that my right hon. leader has correctly interpreted that act. I only want to take the hour and a half or more that has been spent in trying to find out what a single paragraph of this act means as a text upon which to try, if I may, to emphasize to the House what I think was the wisdom of my suggestion the other day when this bill was before us, and that is that the measure should be reprinted and we should have here in one pamphlet exactly what it is intended the naturalization law of Canada shall be after this legislation is put through. We have spent an hour and a half debating as to what the present law may or may not mean, and I think I am not exaggerating when I say that there is not one individual here who is absolutely sure.


William Manley German: Several are absolutely sure.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: All right, but they do not agree. I think this House will concur in the view that British citizenship is not a thing to be handed out like some cheap decoration, and that we do not want people coming to the shores of this country, with bombs in their pockets or criminal records, and being advanced by every possible sort of misguided sympathy to the status of Canadian citizenship.


Samuel William Jacobs: They will have to carry the bombs in their pockets for five years.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: They might find places of concealment. I think my hon. friend might show them places where they could conceal them for a time and then take them, if necessary, if there was an outbreak, for instance, in the city of Winnipeg.
The second point I should like to make is that while citizenship should not be given lightly to any one, the law ought to be so

Naturalization Acts
absolutely clear that there could be no room for misunderstanding either as to the conditions requisite for citizenship or the means to attain those conditions. I should like to see that in the bill. The other day I asked the minister if he would put in his bill the tribunal by which men are to be tried. Shall we have a branch of the Soviet, duly qualified to investigate people? Shall we go back to the days of the Terror and have a certain character of citizenship which will investigate the other citizens and demolish those who are unsatisfactory? Shall we have investigation by a secret police or by a judicial body? I look through this bill, and I do not find any clear-cut definition of what tribunal, by what means a man is to be adjusted to the citizenship which he proposes to assume. This is all left in the mind, in the discretion, in the magnanimity of the Secretary of State. That is precisely where I say it ought not to be. Judicial determination under the present system or the system of a few years ago, in my judgment-and I want to be frank and fair about this-was inadequate, because while I do not reflect upon the judges, while I think they did the best they could, there was not a dollar of the money of Canada spent, there was not the effort of a single official in Canada, as a sort of Crown proctor, to bring before them one solitary fact as regards the character of an applicant for citizenship. A man swore to formal affidavits; he presented himself before the court; he could be put through a certain cross-examination by the court, and the whole examination ended there. I think some of those who have gone on the roll of our citizenship might very well have tried to stand an inspection by members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police or some other body accustomed to dealing with criminals. ' Many undoubtedly, got through who should not have had citizenship. I should like to see that feature of the act strengthened; but I will say on the other hand that it is not consistent with liberty, justice or fair play that the measure of a man's citizenship shall change from day to day and hour to hour according to, perhaps, the political exigencies of the gentleman who may occupy the position of Secretary of State. There is not in Canada a man who, when an election is not on, would do anything other than reprobate the idea of having a vast piece of political machinery that could be made use of at a critical moment. It is not the government that makes 5 p.m. citizens; it is ourselves who make them. We admit them to confraternity with the rest of us. Give the people, through some sort of judicial institution, an
opportunity of saying who is to be admitted to the brotherhood and who is to be excluded. But if the principle of this bill, if there be a principle in it, be adopted, we shall have either the knowledge of the law possessed by the gentleman who may be Secretary of State for the time being or his principal adviser, whoever he may be, or we may have the ignorance of the law, if unfortunately either of them should be succeeded by people who do not know the law. But whether it be knowledge or ignorance, what that department pronounces will be law, even though this parliament never enacted it, if we are to depend on government by order in council, by regulations made by the Secretary of State, by any Secretary of State, no matter how good a man he may be. What I am asking is that there should be written plain and large in the statute every condition that is necessary to enable the man to enter upon British citizenship, both the qualifications and the procedure. To find out this to-day, you have to go through four Canadian statutes and three Imperial statutes; it is necessary to refer from one to another. I ask that they be brought into this chamber, written together as they are to be acted upon, so that if an election was coming on A.B. can get the information he wants if he goes to some person interested in elections and says: "Can I vote? I was bom under certain conditions, in the United States or a foreign country. My father was a British silbject," and so on. "Have I a right to go on the roll? Can I swear that I am a British subject?" Hon. members have heard the discussion that has taken place this afternoon as to the powers of the Secretary of State. I have looked into the statutes to some extent, and I can assure the committee that the rest is as big a jumble with regard to the qualifications of a British subject as the bill is with regard to the powers of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will say that his powers are clear; other hon. members will say that they are not clear. Is that the condition of affairs we want to have when a man seeks to know on the eve of an election, simply whether he is or is not a British subject? This can be cleared up if we can get a comprehensive bill embracing all phases of the subject. We could get through a bill of that kind in a few hours, in less time thaD it has taken us to discuss what may or may not be the law. I asked for that the other day. It has been refused by the government on the ground that some thousands of dollars have been spent for forms. I should like to know this, and perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me: Was the government so sure that
Naturalization Acts

this bit of legislation would be adopted by this House; were the view's that might be expressed by the rest of us with regard to this legislation so trivial.and of so little concern that it was not worth while waiting for us to have a chance to express our opinions, but that a button was pushed, the Printing bureau began to operate and tjiey got out tens of thousands of dollars worth of forms, saying that there would be a merely formal registration in this parliament because the minister was bringing down a bill? If so, do we count for very much here?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I think the hon. member has misconstrued the remarks I made.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Practically everybody seems to have done so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I did not say that the printing was done because of the amendment I was introducing to-day. I said the printing was done because of the acts wre have in force and if this was changed-it is not the amendment I referred to-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I will accept the reason which is the most compelling reason for letting this amendment stand until the forms are used up. Either we are at such an emergency that, in order to save our citizenship, we have to make a new law, and if we have to do that we must waste the forms; or if we have not the emergency, we can wait a while and use up the forms. This legislation would do quite as well next year. J have no personal motive against it; I am quite willing to help as far as I can in devising something that will be workable and fair and that will at the same time be a protection to our citizenship. But I ask that it all be made plain to the people who have to act under it and to the people who have to invoke its assistance. By to-day there could have been a print of all the acts, and put together; we could have had that on every desk, so that we could see what the law will be when the minister gets it through. You cannot tell by these references what it will be.
I am going to point out one simple thing. If hon. members will look at the bill, they will see on the right hand page of the bill what professes to be a summary of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1922. It is said that the sections we are asked to adopt are a reprint. Section 6 of the proposed bill is very nearly a reprint of section 3 of chapter 44 of the act of 1922 of the Imperial parliament. I do not like to have to deal with a technical matter of this sort because it is a little difficult to make it clear

to the House. But if the House will have patience I will read one clause which, in copying the Imperial bill, my hon. friend has absolutely omitted. The clause is this:
A copy of the principal act, with the amendments, whether by way of substitution, addition or omission required by this act, shall be prepared and certified by the clerk of parliament and deposited with the rolls of parliament; and his Majesty's printer shall print, in accordance with the copy so certified, all copies of the principal act which are printed after the commencement of this act.
There was the way they dealt with the matter in Great Britain, so that the people would have in one pamphlet the entire naturalization law. The Secretary of State told me the other day that his department would compile a pamphlet. I said I did not want a pamphlet made up by someone who was interpreting the law; I wanted a pamphlet that would reproduce, word for word, the law as this parliament makes it. Then if I have a view with regard to it and someone else has a different view we can go to a court and get the question straightened out. But if we have to act on the view of the Secretary of State or his deputy or anybody else we are simply bucking against bureaucracy and order in council government. I do not know whether it is one of those figments of the imagination in which we sometimes indulge, but I had thought that it was one of the claims of the Liberal party that they were opposed to order in council and bureaucratic legislation. I thought I had heard it repeated on many platforms that the business of parliament should be done here. I thought I heard my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) not only criticized but condemned, damned I might say everlastingly, because he ruled the country by order in council. But I do not find any great abatement of order in council government since the accession to power of my hon. friends opposite, and I find in this bill an absolute determination to put at the will of one man all the rights of citizenship in Canada and to do that by order in council and order in council only, without giving any necessary notice to the people whose rights are to be affected. If the House and the country want that sort of thing all they have to do is to take it; but I urge the members of this House to impress upon the minister that he either allow this legislation to stand over until next session or let it remain in abeyance for forty-eight hours at least until we can make a compilation of the statutes ourselves so that we may know what the legislation will be when the minister gets it into the shape in which he wants it. It has been utterly impossible since the bill was in-

Cold Storage Act
trodueed, unless a naan devoted his whole time to its consideration-and it would take half a day to go through the seven or eight or nine statutes that are all interlaced-to be able to form any kind of definite opinion as to what the law will be, unless we want to leave it in the pure, sheer ambiguity of order in council and the will of one individual who may be responsible at certain times only to party exigencies. The question for the country is this, I think: Shall naturalization be a matter of judicial determination upon a clear-cut, sane, well-known basis, open for every man to understand, or shall it be a matter of internal administration with the possibility of misuse for political purposes?


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend has made a
number of suggestions and I was very sorry I could not see my way clear to accept the one he offered the other day in regard to the consolidation of the acts. He has made another suggestion to-day, asking for forty-eight hours in which to go over the various statutes himself and come to a conclusion as to what the law really is in regard to naturalization. I have a good idea of the law myself so far as I have been associated with its administration, but I would draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that this parliament has for very many years, and with a great deal of reason and advantage, followed the acts of the Imperial parliament. And this is the exact form which the naturalization law takes in Great Britain; the application is made directly to the Home Secretary who makes an investigation and either grants or refuses the certificate. I am still convinced that the situation as I have outlined it is proper. I can quite understand a number of legal gentlemen at first blush being somewhat apprehensive of taking this matter from the purview of the judges; I was of the same frame of mind myself when the proposal was first made. But when I considered the matter thoroughly I came to see the very great advantage that must and would accrue if the system now proposed were adopted. However, this is not a matter of life and death, and there is no imperious necessity to dispose of it either to-day or to-morrow, or within forty-eight hours. I am quite willing to have hon. gentlemen thoroughly consider it. and indeed I should be glad to have them do so. I am prepared to let it stand over for forty-eight hours as my hon. friend suggests.


William Alves Boys: Make it six months.


Mr. OOPP:: Well, that is hardly possible. I will therefore move that the committee rise and report progress.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not codify the law so that we could understand it?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: My hon. friend is taking me literally in regard to my suggestion as to the length of time we might have to consider the matter; I hardly think that forty-eight hours would be adequate. Could we not have a reprint of the law as it will be in its final form so that we might have it all before us?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will try to get that.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Thanks very much.


William Garland McQuarrie: Will the minister be kind enough to see that a return is made to the questions I asked some time ago in re- [DOT] gard to the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the county court judges of Vancouver on the question of naturalization? I should like to have that information before me before we resume consideration of this matter.


Arthur Bliss Copp: To what is my hon. friend referring?


William Garland McQuarrie: A motion was passed some weeks ago for a return of correspondence between the Secretary of State and the county court judges of Vancouver with reference to the question of naturalization.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I shall be glad to see that the return is brought down.


William Garland McQuarrie: I desire to have it before this matter is proceeded with.


Mr. McBRIDE:: With reference to the question of naturalization certificates being issued on the authority of the judges, I would call the attention of the committee to a statement made by Judge Grant of Vancouver on the subject. He said that, "as long as I sit here as a judge I will always place the responsibility of granting naturalization on the Secretary of State and the government." When a member of the bench, who enjoys the respect that Judge Grant does, declares that he will always place the responsibility for granting naturalization on the government, I think that statement should go a long way to convince us that the Secretary of State is responsible for the citizenship of Canada; and if he is responsible I do not see why we should not leave the matter in his hands.
Progress reported.



COLD STORAGE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 9 to amend the Cold Storage Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
iLive Stock Acts

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 10 to amend and consolidate the acts respecting live stock, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions, etc.
George Newcombe Gordon: Subsection (f) of section 2 has been amended by the agricultural committee by adding thereto the following:
-or any area of land used for the accommodation of live stock at ocean ports of export which may be declared as stockyards by the minister under the provisions of this act.
Subsection (h) has been amended by adding thereto the words:
either directly or indirectly through a commission merchant.
Is it the pleasure, of the committee that clause 2 as amended be carried?
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Live stock exchange at stockyards, etc.


George Newcombe Gordon: This section has been amended by striking therefrom all of subsection 3.
The following amendment has been substituted :
Any such person doing business at a stockyard who neglects to comply with the provisions of section fifteen of this act, or who, for cause, is adjudged by the minister to be liable to removal and exclusion therefrom, shall upon the order of the minister, directed to an inspector or other officer of the department, be removed and excluded from the said stockyard and from doing business thereat and shall not be permitted to return thereto until he procure a special permit from the minister.
Subsection 4 has been added as follows:
Any person refusing to comply with the terms of an order issued by the minister under the next preceding subsection shall be deemed a person within the meaning of, and subject to the penalties provided by and under section thirteen of this act.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Bylaws of exchange to be approved:


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, as to section 4, since this bill came out of the agricultural committee the advisability of adding further provisions to safeguard owners of live stock from being defrauded by commission men in the event of the latter defaulting has been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Calgary and the hon. member for Macleod. It was our intention to frame regulations for this purpose, but a number of hon. members prefer to have suitable provisions inserted in the act

itself. I have no particular choice in the matter. The advantage of effecting the purpose by way of regulations is that these can be changed from time to time if they are found not workable, whereas the act itself can be amended only while parliament is in session. This amendment is to be added at the end of subsection 2 of section 4 of the bill, and reads as follows:
All moneys received on account of sales for stock sold by a commission firm on behalf of the owner thereof shall be deposited in an account in a bank, separate from the firm's private or other commercial accounts, and disbursements of such moneys shall be made only in accordance, with regulations prescribed by the exchange and approved by the minister.
The object of this amendment is to provide against the recurrence of a number of losses that -have been sustained by stockmen as the result of a commission agent having animals consigned to him, selling them on the market, and then placing the money to the credit of his bank account, this money being used by the bank to adjust the commission man's personal account so that it cannot be made available for the owner of the cattle sold. We can either put this provision in the bill or issue it in our regulations according to the wisdom of the committee. In order to bring the matter to a head, Mr. Chairman, I would move that this amendment be inserted at the end of subsection 2 of section 4.


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 4 is amended by adding to subsection 3 the words: in such manner and to such extent as may be required.
An amendment has been proposed to subsection 2 of section 4 in the form moved by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. SPENCE:: Does the word "stock" mean live stock only? If it applies to .anything else I would be opposed to the amendment. I do not see why it should be inserted anyhow, because a commission man who is labouring under financial difficulties would not get very many consignments of cattle to sell. It is ridiculous that a man should be expected to keep separate bank accounts, and I can see no necessity for such a requirement.


William Richard Motherwell: No. it does not apply to anything but live stock.


David Spence: That had better be made clear in the bill. The minister says the bank might take this portion of its customers' money and apply it to his indebtedness. It might do that with any account.

Live Stock Acts


William Richard Motherwell: Possibly the word "live" should be inserted before "stock" in the first line.


Robert Forke: I have known of cases where people lost one carload or two or three carloads of stock in connection with a supposedly reliable firm; they did not know anything was wrong with the firm until the collapse occurred. My own brother lost over $1,000 as a drover, so that I think something should be done in the matter.


David Spence: This will not save the situation, I am afraid.


Robert Forke: It may not; I do not know whether you can compel them to place that amount in the bank otherwise than to their own credit. But something should be done if possible.


William Richard Motherwell: This is not a new difficulty; we have been discussing it at our conventions for years. This seems to be the best solution that has been suggested; if it does not work satisfactorily we can easily amend it. I am satisfied to try the provision in the act; it can do no harm and I think it can do a lot of good.


Mr. GOULD:: In connection with section 13 as relating to subsection 2 of section 4, I should like to offer a word. Section 13 says:
Any person violating any provision of this act or of any regulation thereunder, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding four hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
This is the provision for penalty. It is often the case that individuals in the West will send four, five or six carloads of stock from one farm or co-operative shipments may be sent forward and are handled by a commission firm, the sum involved in each case being some $5,000 or $6,000. It seems to me that if an individual wished to transgress the law he could appropriate thousands of dollars and $400 would be a very small penalty indeed. If a man wished to be crooked or deal unfairly, and took five or six or ten thousand dollars, he would willingly pay his $400. I think that penalty might be increased.


William Richard Motherwell: This precaution is in addition to the bond that he already has to give.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-Regulations:


William Richard Motherwell: When the bill was in committee paragraph (d) was discussed from many angles and the article of wool was in
one day and out the next. It is in now and since the bill came from the committee representations have been made to the department by members of this House indicating that in so far as imported wool is concerned it is physically impossible to grade it, and therefore what is the use of including it here? It was pointed out that it was brought in in large bales rendering it impossible to be inspected or graded, and as it was bought by the one intending to use it, it was consequently a matter between him and the shipper. I think, therefore, that the word "wool" should . be deleted wherever it occurs in paragraph (d) as being an embarrassment to the importer and of no good to anyone else.


William Daum Euler: I would move, Mr. Chairman, that paragraph (d) be amended by striking out the word "wool" in lines 31 and 35.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: I move to amend paragraph (f) to read as follows:
The manner in which calves are to be subjected to ante-mortem inspection, and the manner in which calves condemned by inspectors shall be disposed of.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. LADNER:: Before this section carries, I believe the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) had something to say in connection with it. He is not here just at the moment. Has the minister considered the conflicting sections between this act and the Animal Contagious Diseases Act with respect to meats and some other things.


William Richard Motherwell: Oh yes, we have had that under consideration.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act or the operations under that act, wherever they conflict with this act, to prevail?


William Richard Motherwell: We have taken precautions to see that they do not conflict.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What precautions?


William Richard Motherwell: In the drafting.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How do you distinguish between meat under the Animals Contagious Diseases Act and meat under this act?


William Richard Motherwell: Which subsection does my hon. friend refer to?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I refer to the paragraph in the interpretation clause:	.
"Live Stock" means meat cattle, sheep and swine and poultry.
Live Stock Acts


George Newcombe Gordon: I might point out we are on section 13 now. Section 2 was passed a very considerable time ago.


Leon Johnson Ladner: We have not passed section 12 yet, and section 12 purports to give power to the Governor in Council to regulate these things by order in council. It deals with the procedure, which is the vital thing. It may be that an inspector under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act would be carrying on his duties and another inspector under this act would authorize and pass out of the stockyard certain stock, and that when that stock . gets one hundred and fifty miles out the inspector under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act suspects it of some disease. Whose authority would prevail in that case?


William Richard Motherwell: These two inspections have an entirely different purpose in view. With regard to the Canned Meats Act the inspection is primarily from a sanitary standpoint The inspection under this act is for the purpose of determining the quality of the meat; not its sanitary character. The two do not conflict in the least degree. I think the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) was quite satisfied with this when it was in committee.


Leon Johnson Ladner: He was not satisfied last evening when I was discussing the matter with him. I do not think the minister has really answered the question. The point is this. He says that under this act it is a question of quality that the inspector passes on. Now under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act it is a question of disease. In what way are the duties of these inspection departments to be co-ordinated so that they will not both be working on an animal at a certain time, and in order that both can carry on their duties conveniently?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think their duties will conflict. Even under the Canned Meats Act, if I remember rightly, the inspection of the carcase is sufficient. When it has been inspected and approved by the officers of the department after the animal is slaughtered, it is recognized as being all right for canning purposes. It is entirely a question of quality of grade, if you like to call it that as to whether the meat is fit for caning purposes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is it not possible to have some system of inspection under which there will not be any confusion between two separate departments?
IMr. Ladner.]


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend mean separate branches of the same department?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, certainly.


William Richard Motherwell: There has been
some conflict but owing to friendly co-operation there has not been any friction in the past. Sometimes there has been overlapping, to some extent but we generally overcome that by working in as amicable a manner as possible and there has been no particular friction.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I believe there is sometimes lack of co-operation, and there comes a time when the authority of the inspector who has to deal with diseases might conflict with the authority of the inspector under this act. Under those circumstances I submit that the authority of the former should prevail.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the hon.
gentleman is quite right. If there is any conflict of authority the question of sanitation should receive the first consideration. If my hon. friend has any suggestions to make I would be very glad to receive them and see whether they can be incorporated in the act.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I think the minister and myself agree on that point. Now, is there any provision in the act-if not one will be suggested-whereby there can be no difference in interpretation as to who has the authority? If so what is the provision in question?


William Richard Motherwell: Do you mean that there should be a provision of that nature in the act?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Certainly.


William Richard Motherwell: We will consider the proposition and see whether anything of that nature is required. In the meantime we can leave the bill in committee.


Mr. TOLMIE:: In this connection I think that every possible effort should be made to guard against any clashing of authority. The authority as between the two branches- the live Stock branch and the Health of Animals branch-should be quite clear and well defined. Let me point out the importance of that. In the event of an outbreak, or even a suspected outbreak, of disease in any of the live stock yards throughout the country any clashing of authority might result in very serious loss to Canada. Take for instance the outbreak of foot and mouth disease which occurred in the United States in 1914. Here there was a slowness in

Live Stock Acts
diagnosis, a clashing of state and federal authorities with the result that before they got through the disease had extended to some twenty-two states, with a loss of $20,000,000 to the country. It was with a view to avoiding anything of that kind that I think the authority as between the Health of Animals branch and the Live Stock branch should be clearly defined. In the case of disease, or suspected disease, the Health of Animals branch should be able to step in at once and take control and in that way prevent, perhaps, very serious loss to the live stock industry of the country. This is particularly important because we have an understanding with the United States under which we have worked very amicably for a number of years. An outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country* would mean the quarantining of the American ports against our live stock, and, possibly, would also tie up our export overseas. The committee will readily realize how important this work is. I was upstairs preparing an amendment to this bill and had I got down in time should have moved it. I had no idea the bill was coming up quite so soon. However, I will be glad to let the minister have a copy. I will read this amendment which I desire to have added at the end of the bill. It is as follows:
18A. Notwithstanding the provisions in this act or any other act or law pertaining to or relating to live stock or in'connection with live stock yards, it is hereby enacted that in every case where in the opinion of -a veterinary inspector duly appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Animals' Contagious Diseases Act, a contagious disease or contagious diseases of animals exist, or are suspected to exist, the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and amendments thereto and the provisions therein shall prevail as against this act or all or any other act or acts relating to or pertaining to live stock or live stock yards as defined herein.


William Richard Motherwell: That will come in at the end of the bill-is that the idea?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That is the idea.


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 12 is carried.
On section 20-Repeal:


Oliver Robert Gould: I wish to make some further reference to the matter of penalties. The minister, in reply to the illustration which T gave, said that commission men were always bonded. That is true but the fact of their being bonded has not prevented them from infringing the act in the past. If a commission man has acted improperly in a case where money has been entrusted to him in the past the imposition of a paltry fine of four or five hundred dollars is not likely to act as a serious deterrent in the future


William Richard Motherwell: What the hon.
gentleman says is quite correct but in our commercial relations with each other we have always to take a business risk. Now, this risk has been been reduced to a minimum-first by requiring a bond and second by the precaution of opening a special account. There is also the penalty which has been referred to. If my hon. friend has any suggestions to make looking to further precautions I will be glad to discuss the matter with him. What can we do beyond enacting the provisions set forth here? The man is bonded; he is restricted as to the disposition he will make of the money entrusted to him; if he violates the law he is fined. We might provide a further punishment, we might hang him, but that would not help the man who lost the money any more than would the imposition of a fine. I will talk the matter over with the hon. member for Assiniboia and see if any further provision can be made to secure the owner of the cattle against further losses. There have been losses in the past. There is no question but that very considerable loss has taken place, and we want now to adopt safeguards as adequate as human ingenuity can suggest.


Oliver Robert Gould: It is not my intention to ask the minister to hold the bill in committee; I think he understands the circumstances of the case thoroughly well. As I have stated, there have been these occurrences in the past; there is a possibility of their being repeated. The tendency of producers in the West is to go more and more into co-operation in the shipment of cattle. Instead of the carloads that formerly were shipped, there will be whole train loads going forward. It is not a question of a shipment valued merely at $1,000; the amount now involved runs into $10,000 or $20,000. I think the penalties in this case should be increased. The fine might remain at $400 but there should be a maximum, say, of $1,000; and the security should be on a graduated scale proportionate to the liability which rests on the commission man.


William Richard Motherwell: As I have already intimated we will leave the bill in committee for the present. My attention has been drawn to the further fact that in addition to the precautions contained in the bill, and the fact that an offender can be fined, there is this further fact that he can be expelled from the exchange, so that the offence cannot be repeated. But that does not meet my hon. friend's representation, nor do I think it can be met if we undertake to increase the bond from $10,000, because this would
Questions

simply increase the cost to the commission men that much more. I will, however, look into the matter to see whether the bond can be raised to advantage without embarrassing the trade generally.
Progress reported.



ADMIRALTY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 117, to amend the Admiralty Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Sir LOMER GOUIN:: The resolution which is the basis of this bill was adopted a few days ago. Clauses 1 and 2 are a reproduction of the resolution.
On section 4-Deputy registrar:


Lomer Gouin: This provides for the appointment of a deputy registrar. There is no such provision in the existing statute.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. *

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 112, to amend the Irrigation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 26, 1923