1923-05-03

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificate'of the election and return of Edward Nicholas Hopkins, Esquire, for the Electoral District of Moose Jaw.
Edward Nicholas Hopkins, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Moose Jaw, introduced by Mr. Robert Forke and Mr. J. Fred Johnston.

Fifth Report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.-Mr. McGiverin.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) moved:: That the name of Mr. A. M. Carmichaal be taken from the Hist of members comprising the special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act, and that the name of Mr. A. J. Lewis be inserted in lieu thereof.


Hewitt Bostock: The custom is that such motions are generally made by the leader of the House. I do not, however, see that there is any objection to it. '


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I have no objection.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What is the amount of revenue collected from the sales tax and other war taxes in the province of Alberta for the past three years?
2.	What is the cost of collecting same for each of the three years?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Customs and Excise-Revenue collected from Sales tax and "other excise taxes" in the province of Alberta during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1921, 1922 and
1923.
1.
Other
Fiscal Year Sales Tax Excise Taxes
1921	
$ 778,841.08	$1,216,370.081922	
1,275,984.48	201,271.621923	
1,814,623.91	409,550.732.	Information not available as collections are made by customs excise officers who collect customs and excise duties and perform other work.
Department of Finance-
1.	The special war taxes on trust and loan company income, insurance premiums (other than life) and bank note circulation, are paid to the Department of Finance and Insurance from the head offices of the corporations concerned, and no compilation is made of the amount of taxes paid from different provinces, nor is information returned upon which the amount of taxes paid in respect of income derived from the several provinces could be established.
2.	The administration of the taxes does not involve the maintenance of special staff for the purpose. The cost is not separable, therefore, from the general expenses of the departments.
VERMILION, ALBERTA Mr. SPENCER:
1.	What sum does the lessee pay the Dominion government for the use of lots 31 and 32, block 8, town of Vermilion, Alberta?
2.	What rent does the government pay the postmaster at Vermilion for the use of his building as a Post Office?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1. No rental paid as no lease has been entered into, nor has permission been given to use these lots.
2.	Postmaster is paid an allowance of $719 for rent, light and heat.


YUKON TELEGRAPH SYSTEM
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1. What was the revenue during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922, from the Yukon telegraph system?
2.	What was the revenue during the same period on the said system from messages sent and delivered within British Columbia?
3.	What was the revenue during the sarhe period on said system from messages: (a) Sent and delivered within Yukon territory; (b) Sent within Yukon territory and delivered elsewhere; (c) Sent from points outs:de Yukon territory and delivered within Yukon territory ?
Questions


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	S105,717.22.
2.	$65,070.88.
3.	(a) $7,142.94; (b) $9,492.02; (c) $6,644.54.


DR. BOYER
Mr. MARTELL:: 1.	When was Dr. Boyer appointed consulting neurologist under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment ?
2.	What was Dr. Boyer's war service, what unit did he serve with and in what capacity?
3.	(a) What fees have been paid to Dr. Boyer, and
(b)	what travelling expenses have been allowed him while in the service of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment as physician or neurologist?
4.	Does Dr. Boyer carry on a private practice?
5.	What review is there of the findings of Dr. Boyer?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	On the 1st of January, 1921, Dr. George Florian Boyer was appointed to the staff of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in Toronto as a part-time consultant neurologist.
2.	Appointed Captain C.A.M.C. No. 4 General Hospital, 13th April, 1915: proceeded to England 16th May, 1915; proceeded to Salo-nica, 17th October, 1915; returned to England, 19th June 1916, sick; promoted to Major, 25th January, 1918; employed in England until 9th April, 1918, when he was returned to Canada; struck off the strength of the Canadian Expeditionary Force 17th November, 1920.
3.	(a) Dr. Boyer receives a part-time monthly remuneration of $250, aggregating $6,669.35 for the period of 28 months, ended 30th of April, 1923. (b) No amounts were paid as travelling or other expenses.
4.	Yes.
5.	The findings or reports of examinations submitted by Dr. Boyer are for the information and guidance of the executive medical officers of the department or the medical advisors of the Board of Pension Commissioners, as the case may be, and are subject to review by these officers in the same manner as the reports of other consultants and examiners.


ROCKY MOUNTAINS PARK
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	Does the Hudson's Bay Company own or claim
any lands within the "Rocky Mountains Park of Canada"?	.	.
2.	If so, what is the area and legal description of such lands.


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The claims of the Hudson's Bay Company to lands within parks have not been admitted by the Government.
(Mr. George Black.]


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY-SUPERANNUATION FUND
Mr. GAUYREAU:: When does the Canadian National Railways intend to put into force the new regulation in regard to the superannuation fund of the employees of the whole Canadian National Railway System?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The matter is now under active consideration by the management, and it may be possible to bring down necessary legislation during the present session.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-PENSIONERS
Mr. GAUYREAU:: 1. Are the old pensioners of the Grand Trunk Railway still entitled to an annual pass on the National Railways?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Minister of Railways to grant the same favour to the old pensioners of the Intercolonial Railway?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is under consideration by the management.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend section 487 of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by providing that a master or mate upon application as therein provided may, if his application be approved by the pilotage authority, be thereupon examined, and if found competent, a pilotage certificate may be granted to him.
He said: The subject matter of this resolution having been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, he has been pleased to give his assent thereto.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. LUCAS:: Has the government any information that there have been three desertions from the Canadian Air Force.at Camp Borden within the last few weeks and that eight of the best technical men have, made urgent demands for their discharge? Is this true and if so, what does the government intend to do in regard to the situation?


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Acting Minister of National Defence):: I am obliged to the hon. gentleman for calling our attention to this matter. I will make inquiry as to the report to which he refers and will give a reply later.

Canada Temperance Act


U.S. LABOUR DELEGATES DETAINED
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have to ask mv daily question:	What decision has been come
to in regard to Alexander Howat?
Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil:	I have
no answer from our port officer at McAdam Junction.


CUSTOMS OFFICER AT NEW YORK
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. LADNER:: May I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether or not he has come to a decision in respect to the question of the customs officer at New York? In the Vancouver Sun of April 27, there appears an interview in which he is reported as saying:
It is sheer nonsense to collect duty on steel shipped from Nova Scotia to British Columbia via Panama canal.
Then the Prime Minister continues:
I am in favour of some system being devised by the Customs department to provide for bonding through Canadian goods which are carried by an all-water route.


Hewitt Bostock: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that as the Order of the Day has already provided for an answer to a question put by himself, his speech now is out of order. Besides, if my memory serves me right, a categorical answer was given by the Minister of Customs a few days ago on this very same subject.


CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 43, to amend the Canada Temperance Act, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Importation of intoxicating liquor prohibited:
The CHAIRMAN:: An amendment has
been moved that paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection 2 of section 1 be struck out and the following two paragraphs be added as paragraphs (c) and (d) respectively:
(c)	The importation of intoxicating liquor into a province by any person duly licensed by the government of Canada to carry on the business or trade of a distiller, where the intoxicating liquor so imported is imported solely for the purpose of being used for blending with or flavouring the products of the business or trade of a distiller carried on by him in the province and while kept by him in the province is kept in a place or warehouse which conforms in all respects to the requirements of the law governing such places or warehouses and is used solely for blending with or flavouring the products of his said business or trade as a distiller; or
(d)	The importation of intoxicating liquor into a province by a person engaged in and carrying on the business of exporting intoxicating liquor from that province, where the intoxicating liquor so imported is imported solely for the purpose of his export business and while kept by him in the province, is kept in a liquor warehouse which conforms in all respects to the requirements of the law governing such ware-nouses, and when sold or disposed of by him is actually exported from that province:


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The bill before
he committee consists of a single section the adoption of which carries the bill; and the amendment that has been moved will in effect put into force in British Columbia what is known as the Doherty Act without consulting the electors of the province. The provisions of that act will affect everybody in British Columbia except the liquor commission, or as that body is more properly described, in British Columbia the Liquor Control Board-control is the main object out there. Subsection (1) of section 1 is a "bone-dry" section except so far as the Liquor Control Board is concerned, and as a resident of British Columbia I protest against this legislation, as I am sure the great majority of the people of that province would protest against it if the question were submitted to them. Public opinion in British Columbia is decidedly against this legislation; I believe it is as totally averse to depriving individuals of the right to import for their own use, as it is to allowing private individuals to sell liquor in the province. And that opinion against any attempt to deprive private persons of the right to import liquor into the province is all the stronger after the people have observed the administration of the act under the Liquor Control Board during the past few years. I think that right of private individuals should be more jealously guarded. The Liquor Control Board is virtually the Attorney General of the province. The members of the board are mere figureheads; the Attorney General pulls the strings and they dance to his music. This legislation, is an infringement of public and private rights, rights which the people have never voted to have taken from them. It is not necessary in the interests of temperance, it is not necessary in the interests of moderation, to deprive the individual in British Columbia of the right to import liquor; nor is it needed to prevent that illicit sale, known as "bootlegging." This legislation is absolutely unnecessary for that purpose. To pretend that it is needed is merely to say what cannot be substantiated; any assertion of the kind is sheer pretence, a sham, a camouflage. I say, therefore, that if it is wise or fair or good legislation to allow the Attorney General of British Columbia by order in
Canada Temperance Act

council to abolish the existing subsections (c) and (d), which constitute an exception to the bone-dry section 1, and to do so without consulting the wishes of the people of British Columbia, it is just as fair and wise to allow him to nullify the two other exceptions which allow the distillers to import for purposes of their business, and common carriers to convey liquor through the province. This legislation does not allow the Attorney General to nullify these two provisions, but it gives him power by order in council to do away with the provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d). It is just as reasonable to clothe the Attorney General with the same power in regard to all four exceptions as it is to allow him to exercise the power with reference to two of them without consulting the wishes of the people. To be consistent, why not give him power to alter the whole liquor system of the province of British Columbia by order in council? Why not allow him to nullify provisions (a) and (b), one of which allows importation into the province by the provincial government, while the other provides for the carriage of liquor through the province by common carriers? Why not give him the right to abolish these provisions at his will? It is manifestly unfair to let him interfere with either set of these provisions by order in council. This parliament has no mandate to confer any such power on the Attorney General of British Columbia. The provincial government and the Attorney General of the province have no mandate from the electors of the province to legislate them out of their present rights. Why therefore should this parliament at this time infringe upon those rights? What is the excuse, what is the neces sity for it? Why clothe the attorney general with this extraordinary power?
In a prohibition province there must be a plebiscite before the Dominion government will apply the provisions of the Doherty Act. So why not a plebiscite for British Columbia, where there is much less likelihood of the people desiring what is virtually the Doherty Act than there is in the bone dry provinces. The Prohibition Act of British Columbia, which was administered most unsatisfactorily for a number of years, recognized the right of the private individual to import for export under license and for personal use. The Liquor Control Act under which we are now operating in British Columbia recognizes that right. The provincial government has never gone to the country either by plebiscite or referendum seeking the powers proposed to be conferred on them by this bill In effect the Minister of Justice is asking parliament to take away fMr. George Black.]
from the people of British Columbia rights which they did not give up and which there is no good reason why they should be deprived of at this time. Why not consult the people of British Columbia on this proposal, as was done when the plebiscite was taken in 1920, before depriving them of their undoubted constitutional rights?
To illustrate w'hat I have said, in the 1920 plebiscite the questions put to the electors were two, and I do not think anyone can read into those questions and the answers to them any excuse for this legislation. The first question was: Are you in favour of continuing the present prohibition act? The second question was:	Are you in favour of government control and sale of liquor in sealed packages? The answer to the first question was overwhelmingly "no", they did not want to continue the prohibition act; the answer to the second question was overwhelmingly "yes"; and the legislature legislated accordingly. There is absolutely nothing in these questions and answers authorizing the enactment of thfe legislation which the Minister of Justice now asks this House to pass.
I think it is an admitted fact that in a great measure the dissatisfaction prevailing in the United States to-day with regard to prohibition is because of the unfair way in which prohibition was put upon the people. They were not consulted, their rights were legislated away from them. And that is what we are trying to do to-day-to take away from the people of Britsh Columbia rights which they have never asked to be divested of. I cannot bring myself to believe that the Minister of Justice understood the conditions in British Columbia when he introduced this legislation or he would not seek to treat the people there so unfairly. There is no intimation from the people of British Columbia that they want this legislation. Why not be fair to them, why not give them a chance to say whether or not they want it? Are the people of British Columbia not to be trusted in regard to this question? Is their wish to be thrust aside to suit the whim of the Attorney General of vhat province to enhance his power? For that is all it amounts to. The Attorney General of British Columbia in asking for this legislation does not want moderation, he does not want prohibition: he simply wants power-power which the electorate of that province have never signified they wish him to be clothed with, and he has come to this parliament in this roundabout way to get this power over the heads of the people.
Hon. members opposite, particularly the right hon. Prime Minister, not so very long ago were prone to declaim against what they

Canada Temperance Act
termed "government by order in council''. When they were in opposition, less than two years ago, we heard a great deal against so-called government by order in council. Was there ever a. more flagrant case of government by order in council than that sought to be created by this bill? The situation is this: There is legislation in operation in British Columbia regulating the liquor traffic, legislation passed and put in operation at the instance of the people of that province. Now, without consulting the people of the province, it is sought by this bill to empower the Attorney General of British Columbia by order in council, to completely change the effect of the liquor legislation now in operation in that province. If that is not government by order in council, then there never was an instance of it. It is government by order in council not only of the province but of the federal government; it is distinctly order in council government. I say we should not do it. I say the Minister of Justice should not ask the House to do it. I go further, I say it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to oppose the passage of legislation of this character. It is his duty to prevent it. It is not democratic, it is not fair to the people affected.
Now, what is the excuse for this extraordinary act on the part of the government? The ordinary excuse for government by order in council of recent times has been that there was a war on, or that the government was under the stress of re-establishment. Why this extraordinary measure now with no extraordinary circumstances to excuse it? It may be said there is a war on -a war against the bootleggers of British Columbia. But I tell this House that it is only a sham fight; there is no real war on there; and it is not necessary to enforce the present liquor law of British Columbia that this bill should be enacted.
Is the Attorney General of British Columbia, is the Liquor Control Board of that province, encouraging moderation in the use of liquor? I say, no

notoriously no. As the member for New Westminster (Mr. Mc-Quarrie) said yesterday, so far as temperance goes in British Columbia "There is nothing doing in that quarter;" that is, in the vicinity of the Liquor Control Board and the Attorney General's office. What is happening? The Attorney General and the Liquor Control Board of British Columbia are actually booming the liquor trade, they are urging people to buy liquor and to drink it. Then they talk about wanting to enforce the liquor law! It was expected when this act was
put in force in British Columbia that the government there would encourage moderation in the consumption of liquor. The old crusade against the bar had its merits and had its success in the fact that the bars tempted people to drink. The idea of the true moderationists in dealing with the bar was to remove this temptation, and they expected that by the government taking over the control and sale of liquor good liquor would be made available to the people in moderate quantities at moderate prices. They never contemplated that the Lipuor Control Board should by a campaign of liquor advertising flaunt their favoured brands in flaring advertisements before the public throughout that province as they are doing to-day. Why, you would think there was a Victory bond sale going on out there, from the way the Liquor Control Board are advertising different brands of liquor. Every billboard in the country is filled up with that kind of advertising, to say nothing of newspapers-and yet they talk about moderation. The moderationists of British Columbia never supposed that there would be competition between Government liquor shops as there actually is to-day. Can you imagine competition for trade between vendors in the respective government liquor shops? Can you imagine them persuading people to buy at their particular shop so that they would mak^ records for big sales and in that way curry favour with their employers? Is that moderation? That is the sort of liquor board that this House is asked to encourage and give more power to. I say they are not fit to be entrusted with that power, but apart altogether from that, I say the people of British Columbia do not want it. The people never expected this when they voted for what was called the moderation act in British Columbia. They never expected that when reputable, old, established distilling concerns from the Old Country offered their goods for sale to the British Columbia Control Board they would find it necessary, in order to make a sale, to appoint as their agents ward officers of city Liberal associations, thereby greatly increasing the price to the public. The moderationists of British Columbia, I say, did not expect that, but that is what has been done and is being done to-day, and that is one reason why this House should not force the people of British Columbia to buy liquor from such vendors exclusively.
Now, let me say a word about the price of liquor in British Columbia. The Whiskey Association of Great Britain comprises practically all the largest and best distillers in the
Canada Temperance Act

United Kingdom. They have a minimum price for export of 55 shillings per case. They will not ship for less; anything cheaper is green whiskey and not fit for use. Fifty-five shillings at 23 cents would amount to 12.65 f.o.b. United Kingdom. Freight, insurance and charges to Vancouver would amount to SI; duty on whiskey, S10 per proof gallon, 2 gallons per case at 25 under proof; duty on whiskey; duty on glass, and Dominion sales tax adds $21 per case, which makes the landed cost of the whiskey in Vancouver $34.65 a case. What does the government charge the public for that whiskey? They charge $54 a case, making a profit of $19.35 a case. Is it any wonder that the bootlegger can do business successfully in competition with prices like that? I ask the government and I ask this committee, is it fair to prevent individuals from importing for their own use when they can bring the goods in at $34.65 a case and the government charges $54? That is another sample of the way the liquor business is handled in British Columbia. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) yesterday, and the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), referred to a local wine company there, known as the California Wine Company. There is a fine old port, product of Spain, called Con-vido port, black label, white letters. This local wine company copied the label and called it "Bonvido Fine Old Port." They sold it over the counter in the government shops as fine old port, and it was proved that the material in these bottles was nothing but loganberry juice and some truck brought up in mats and casks from California. In one instance an order went in to the wine company for 55 cases and the answer was, "WTe have not any on hand, but we will make some up for the morning,"-"fine old port" made overnight! These are the people that this House would force the consumers of British Columbia to deal with. But that is not all. Let me tell the committee something about the method employed by the Liquor Control Board in handling whiskey in British Columbia. The board purchased 1,690 cases of Roderick Dhu whiskey, 1,350 cases of Royal Stuart Scotch, 1,900 cases of Balmoral Scotch and 2,000 cases of Milburn Scotch-all cheap, inferior whiskey-and other odds and ends, amounting to something over 7,000 cases. What was done with that stuff? It was so bad that they did not dare to put it on the government shelves for sale; nobody would buy it. Well, the corks were drawn and the whole was mixed with prune juice and other ingredients in a big vat. A high voltage electrical device was employed and the stuff tM'-. George Black.]
"aged" on the spot, was rebottled and sold at S3.50 a quart, at the government shops labelled, "L. C. B."-Liquor Control Board. That is the sort of stuff this legislation would compel the people of British Columbia to buy. I am sure the Minister of Justice did not realize what he was doing when he introduced this legislation. These facts were brought out before the public accounts committee of the Legislature of British Columbia. The stuff the Liquor Control Board of British Columbia sells reminds me of a story told of a certain saloon in Dawson City in the old days. It had a sawdust floor; many of them had, but in this saloon when they sold a man a glass of whiskey they handed him a whisk broom-that was to brush the sawdust off himself when he came to. Well, the Liquor Control Board of British Columbia does not even supply a whisk broom. If the Liquor Control Board handles wine and whiskey like that while people who know enough or have money enough to do so import for their own use, what will they not do when you give them the monopoly this legislation creates and force people to buy from them exclusively?
Under the law as it is at present in British Columbia the individual who imports foi his own use is taxed by the British Columbia government the amount of profit the government would have made had the government sold him the liquor, so the government loses nothing on the transaction. It is not in competition with the government, but by importing it personally the importer is sure of the quality and does not take the fearful risk of having the liquor doctored up as I have described. Do you think it is fair to prevent him from importing his own liquor when he would otherwise have to buy stuff like that? There is no bootlegging in British Columbia by private importers. Any bootlegging that is done there can easily be controlled by the Attorney General of the province with the legal machinery he already has. I leave it to the Minister of Justice or to any member of the committee: would he want to buy liquor from a dealer who does as I have described? AVould he feel safe? The Minister of Justice said yesterday that the reason for this legislation was a desire.to stop bootlegging. I can tell him and tell the House that this legislation is not needed to stop bootlegging in British Columbia; bootlegging can be stopped by the bona fide prosecution of the bootlegger and lawbreaker and by discontinuing the present practice of playing politics with the liquor business. Just as soon as they stop that they can stop bootlegging, but you cannot mix up politics

Canada Temperance Act
and the selling of liquor and have good law or good liquor. Bootlegging, could be stopped by the government in this way, by importing and selling only good liquors at a fair price. What bootlegger could successfully compete with the government, buying on the wholesale scale that the government does and with the facilities it has for handling the goods? You might find an odd tramp walking about the streets with a flask in his hip pocket and selling a drink here and there for twenty-five cents, but that is a mere drop in the bucket. The Attorney General could stop the real bootlegging if he wanted to. [DOT]
As I said at the outset, the design of this legislation is not to stop bootlegging or to further moderation or temperance in the consumption of liquor. It is merely designed to give the Attorney General of British Columbia more power. The export warehouses are absolutely under the control of the government and can be checked up for every quart of liquor they handle. They can easily be put out of business by prosecution if they violate the law. It is alleged, I understand, by the Attorney General of British Columbia that these export and import warehouses are the cause of bootlegging. Well, he has them right under his hand at the present time and does not need this legislation to control them. The object of this legislation, I repeat, is to give the Control Board more power to force their spurious liquors upon the people of British Columbia. I must oppose this bill and I ask the government and the House not to force this legislation on the people of British Columbia without first consulting their wishes in the regular and constitutional way. Surely it is not too much to ask them whether they want it or not. The House has nothing to indicate that they want it except the word of the Attorney General who gives a reason that is not sound at all. If the bill had the sanction of the people of British Columbia or of the majority I would not question it for one moment; but it has not; it is unfair to them, and in my opinion should not go through.
I would like the House to observe that the effect of this bill when it is passed is to leave things just exactly as they are so far as the state of law and the administration of the law is concerned, but it does this; it gives the Attorney General of British Columbia the power to change it at his will. He need not necessarily change it, but he has the power there for control. If the bill came out-and-out in a manly way and said, this will be the law or that will be the law, the House might
very well pass judgment upon it, but why give the Attorney General of British Columbia this discretionary power to squeeze these people or not as he sees fit. I say that it is not- wise legislation, and I hope that the government will not force it through.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: I have gathered from the remarks of the hon. members who spoke yesterday and the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Black) that there is opposition to the licenses granted to exporters in British Columbia,-they all seem to agree on that point; and further that there is really some bootlegging going on in British Columbia, and they all seem to be of opinion that a stop should be put to that traffic. The objection was offered yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that the bill as we have introduced it was not in conformity with the resolution adopted by the legislature of British Columbia, and he added that it was not necessary to legislate to prohibit- the importation of intoxicating liquors because already the province had the right to do so. He cited the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice to that effect. Hon members will remember that yesterday in closing my remarks I said that if it was the wish of the hon. members for British Columbia that we should drop subsection (d), that is to say, make no exception in favour of the exporters, I was disposed to discuss that point. I would like to make my position in this matter as clear as possible. My predecessor, that is to say the hon. ex-Solicitor General, Mr. McKenzie, who drafted this bill and introduced it, had in his hands at the time a resolution which was adopted by the legislature of British Columbia in the month of December, 1922. That resolution reads as follows:
Whereas a plebiscite was taken in the province of British Columbia in October, 1920, on the following question:-
Which do you Prefer?
(1)	The present "Prohibition Act", or
(2)	An Act to provide for government control and sale in sealed packages of spirituous and mailt liquors?
And whereas the vote was strongly in favour of government control and sale:
And whereas as a result of the said plebiscite there was passed by the legislature of this province the "Government Liquor Act";
And whereas eighteen months off administration under that act has demonstrated the necessity for the prohibition of the importation of liquor into this province by other than the provincial government in order to accomplish the effective working of the said Act;
And whereas federal legislation to that end was sought at the meeting of the federal parliament in the spring of 1922, and the said proposed legislation met with the unanimous approval of the House of
Canada Temperance Act

Commons, but was defeated in the Senate at the olose of its session when many Senators were not present;
And whereas it is desirable that this province again seek the enactment of the proposed legislation;
Therefore be it resolved, that the federal parliament be requested at its next sittings to enact legislation providing for the prohibition of the importation of intoxicating liquor into British Columbia for use therein except by the provincial government; such legislation to be for the purpose of supplementing and giving effect to the aiforamemtioned "Government Liquor Act" and to be contingent upon and to exist only during its continuance;
And be it further resolved, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, praying that he will cause a copy of the preamble and resolution hereinbefore set out to be transmitted to the Hon. the Secretary of State at Ottawa.
So, there was a plebiscite held in the province of British Columbia through which the electors by a very large majority declared themselves in favour of the sale of liquor by the government. Last year the government of British Columbia came to this parliament and asked that we should legislate to prohibit the importation of liquor. This bill of - ours was passed unanimously by this House, but defeated by the Senate. It is after that refusal of the Senate to accept such legislation that the legislature of British Columbia unanimously, I understand, by a large majority anyhow-


Mr. STEVENS:: By a majority.


Lomer Gouin: -requested the government to legislate so that in the future importation of liquor into British Columbia should not be allowed except by the government of the province. The hon. Solicitor General has introduced the bill that you have before you, Mr. Chairman. By that bill it is provided that in principle the importation of intoxicating liquors is prohibited. An exception is made for the government. Another exception was made for the exporters for their trade. They were allowed to import only	for their	trade	of exportation.
Since the second reading of the bill was adopted by this House I proposed myself that an addition should be made to the exception, to the effect that this should not apply to distillers in the province of British Columbia. Now, I gather from this debate that the hon. members for British Columbia object to exporters being allowed to continue their trade. Hon. members are very much opposed and rightly so, to the bootlegging that is going on in that province. There is a proviso by virtue of which the government would have power to permit such exporters to continue their trade, or to refuse such authorization, and the great objection is that we should not give to a province such 
a right to legislate, as they say, by order in council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister permit me to interrupt him. To make complete the objections he is reciting, we object and we claim that the Attorney General in conjunction with the proper officer of this government has that power now just as completely as this bill gives it to him. Secondly we claim that by this bill this parliament is foregoing its rights, transferring its rights into the hands of the Attorney General, without definitely stating that the importation will cease.


Lomer Gouin: I was going to sav to the hon. member that we do not intend to transfer that right to the Attorney General. The hon. member concluded his remarks yesterday by saying: "Well, I will not oppose the legislation" I understood that he was disposed to vote in its favour; but even with that declaration of his I want to try and satisfy all my hon. friends opposite and the people of British Columbia in this matter. I come here in all sincerity and I want to make the legislation I offer workable. There was a plebiscite in the province of British Columbia when the people, by a large majority, declared that they favoured a system of control by the government. This was supplemented by a resolution in the legislature of that province by which it is asked that we should now proceed to prohibit the importation of liquors and allow it only in favour of the government. The legislation which is before you, Mr. Chairman, is to that effect but I want to try to make its purpose as clear as possible. My hon. friends opposite object to the proviso that they found in the first, and second draughts. I am prepared to drop it. My hon. friends object also to licenses to exporters. Well, I am prepared to drop that. Now, my hon. friends cannot refuse to vote in support of the prohibition of importation except in favour of the government, because the people have already voted on the plebiscite and the legislature has requested this government to legislate in that direction. We make an exception for the manufacturers-that is to say the distillers and the brewers-and this exception is nothing but the general law for the provinces where you have prohibition. As all will remember, in the provinces where prohibition was adopted by the people and ratified by the executive, there is1 an exception in favour of manufacturers and brewers. The exception that you will find in the amendment that you have to consider is abou:,

Canada Temperance Act
what you find in that proviso of the law o! 1919. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, with your permission and the permission of hon. members, I would ask to be permitted to strike out from the amendment that I have suggested the last part of that amendment. My amendment would read as follows:
That paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 163 be struck out and replaced by the following:
(c) The importation of intoxicating liquor into the province by any person duly licensed by the government of Canada to carry on the business or trade of a distiller or brewer where the intoxicating Jiquor so imported is imported solely for the purpose of blending with or flavouring the products of the business or trade of a distiller or brewer carried on by him in the province and while kept by him in the province is kept in a place or warehouse which conforms in all respects to the requirements of the law governing such places or warehouses and is used solely for blending with or flavouring the products of his said business or trade as a distiller or brewer.
That will be the only exception and without any discretion to the Attorney General or to the executive. With this amendment it seems to me that the measure should be accepted by hon. members.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I understand from the minister that it is the proviso he is dropping?


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The proviso in the second paragraph of page 2, but still sub-section 5 applies.


Lomer Gouin: And when it is applied there will be two exceptions, one in favour of the government and one in favour of the distillers. As long as it is applied under the disposition of subsection 5 it is the law of the day, and under such law the distillers and brewers have this right. So that whenever you apply this bi'l you can do it only by preserving the exception in favour of the distillers and brewers.


Arthur Meighen: But the whole act goes into effect by the will of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. In that regard I would like to impress an argument on the minister and see whether it has any effect upon him or not. I approach it this way: Constitutionally there are certain important powers that are exclusively the possession of the provinces. There are other important powers exclusively the possession of the Dominion. It is admitted that the sovereign jurisdiction of the provinces in respect of theirs is on a level with the sovereign jurisdiction of the Dominion in respect of ours. It is also admitted that there can be no assignment from one to the other; from the Dominion to a province, or from the province to a Dominion, of any
powers. That either must act, not only in spirit but in letter, up to those requirements, those constitutional requirements. The Doherty Act provided another method, if I may so describe it, of giving what are Dominion powers to a province. It 4 p.m. gives the Dominion powers to a province in this way and subject to these precautions: The Doherty Act says that in every province which has a law living up to certain definite requirements of prohibition there shall be certain provisions of a federal act applied, the provisions being the prevention of importation with certain exceptions. The precautions are these: That first of all a majority of the legislature shall petition to have the federal act applied thereby bringing into effect within the province alone a federal law arising out of exclusively federal jurisdiction. That is the first precaution that the Doherty Act provides. Now, it provides a second pre-. caution of very great importance: That notwithstanding the fact that a majority of the legislature petitions-what the legislature petitions for, indeed, is the plebiscite indicating the will first of the legislature -[DOT] notwithstanding that, and in addition to that, the people of the province themselves shall vote and, by a majority, shall declare their will that such federal law arising out -of federal jurisdiction shall apply. Those precautions are very great safeguards. Undoubtedly it would never be sound and never be for the public good that the Dominion parliament should consent to bestow upon a province the right to call into effect federal law, except with such safeguards. The minister goes much further than, that in this bill, and it seems to me, though he may argtie that it is not of vital or sweeping consequences, that he establishes a precedent that may be dangerous. He seeks now to bring into effect in a province a federal measure with none of these precautions, none of those safeguards at all. This is a federal measure, and its provisions may be called into effect in a province by the mere fiat of a lieutenant governor in council. I ask hon. members to remember that this bill is general and applies everywhere. The minister speaks of British Columbia; but whenever another province comes into the position of British Columbia, the bill will apply in that province. The minister says that in British Columbia the legislature has voted a resolution asking for such a bill. Very good. Another legislature may not do so; but the lieutenant governor in council at that time may nevertheless call this bill into effect or call it out of effect. Therefore, while the minister can plead the resolution of
Canada Temperance Act

a legislature in this ease, he can plead it only as applicable to the individual instance, and it in no way justifies the generality of his bill.
Next, he has not the safeguard that the majority of the people in that province must want this legislation. The legislature need take no responsibility as it has to in the case of legislation within its powers. It is not necessary, as a safeguard to this legislation going into effect, that the people must want this measure. A mere lieutenant governor in council may call this bill in effect in any province which has given to it government control over the sale of liquor, a power to sell liquor in that province. Surely the minister is going a very grave length from the constitutional standpoint, and a length that, it seems to me, is going to get this parliament into difficulties later on. Even in the present case he cannot plead the plebiscite in British Columbia. But if he could plead it, that would not answer to the charge I make against his bill, because his bill is general and it will apply in the future just as well as now, when possibly British Columbia will not want at all what it voted for two or three years ago. It may not want now what it voted for two or three years ago; but it will have to take it, if the Lieutenant Governor in Council says so, and the legislature will have no power to veto it.
I started out a moment ago to say that even in this case, the minister cannot plead the plebiscite of British Columbia. British Columbia never by any vote voted for such legislation to be in effect, as the Lieutenant Governor in Council can put it into effect if this bill passes. What did the people of British Columbia vote for? Presumably knowing the jurisdiction of their legislature, the limits of that jurisdiction, they voted to endow that legislature with control of the sale of liquor, that is, with power to sell liquor through a government institution. When they voted for that, they knew that if the legislature followed the vote of the majority, nevertheless there would be the right to import for private use. They knew that, so presumably they voted that the power of the legislature and its exercise should be concurrent with the right of importation. The minister could not say nay to that contention.


Lomer Gouin: What about the
resolution of the legislature?


Arthur Meighen: I am dealing with the
people now. The minister should have interrupted me when I was dealing with the resolution. I will come to the resolution later if the minister wants me to refer to it again.

He cannot plead the vote of the people. The people voted just the other way; they voted that the legislature might establish, and they willed that it should establish, a board for the sale of liquor within the province. They voted, knowing that such institution and the operation of that institution would be concurrent with the right of private importation for private use. The minister is putting it within the power of their government, without recourse to the people at all, to impose upon the people something which they did not vote for, and which presumably they voted against.


Lomer Gouin: I cannot accept
the "presumably," because the question was only whether they were in favour of prohibition or in favour of control by the government. There was no question of importation.


Arthur Meighen: There was the question of importation, for this reason. They voted for control by the government, for the government having the right itself to sell liquor in sealed packages; that is to say, government control, government monopoly within the province over the sale of liquor in sealed packages. But they voted, presumably knowing-and that is why I used the word "presumably"-that while such legislation was going into effect, they would have the right, not to sell, but to import for private use. Consequently the people must be presumed to have voted against the prevention of importation for private use. The minister is putting it within the power of the government of that province to put precisely the opposite into effect, that precisely opposite law being a law that can derive force only from enactment by the parliament of Canada.
I have covered both phases of the argument. The minister sweeps aside the safeguards that all along have been provided, where what is exclusively federal power is put into the hands of a province, and he passes a general law which will enable the lieutenant governor of any province, under certain conditions, to put into effect in that province legislation which is federal legislation, irrespective wholly of the will of the people of that province. The minister says that he is justified because of the resolution. I answer him again that he can plead that for the present the Legislature of British Columbia warns this bill. I may be making too sweeping a statement in his favour, because I have not heard the whole of the debate; but so far as I have heard it, he can plead for the present that the legislature of British Columbia wants this bill. He cannot plead that the people do; he has not the slightest ground to argue that the people do. Every circumstance, every

Canada Temperance Act
fact we know argues that the people do not want it. He can, however, argue that the legislature at the present time wants this bill, or it did last December. But I tell the minister again that he is passing a law that will enable the provincial government, no matter what the people may want, to bring into effect a federal law wholly against the will of the legislature and of the people.


Lomer Gouin: They have the power to change it.


Arthur Meighen: But is it right, sound, or for the public good, that a federal law, a law that derives force wholly from enactment by this parliament, should be allowed to be put into effect by order in council in a province irrespective altogether of the will of the people or of the legislature, and to say in effect, for four years or until some other lieutenant governor, notwithstanding any vote of the people, may choose to wipe it away? I am presenting the case from the constitutional standpoint to the minister, and I venture to say, if the minister had taken it into his own hands and reviewed this phase of it, then, as a result of conditions that I have presented to him now, and that would have arisen to his mind he would have never made himself the party chiefly, responsible for legislation of this character.


Mr. McBRIDE:: In rising to say a few words on the question before the committee, I should like to assure the Minister of Justice that British Columbia is not entirely represented in the section of the House, to my right. We members here do not want to occupy the time of the House for hours talking politics, nor to influence the vote that will be taken in Manitoba this summer. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has been referring to British Columbia and telling the House what the people want out there. I want that hon. gentleman to understand that I represent over one-third of British Columbia, and was sent here by a majority of over 3,200 in excess of the man who ran to support the hon. leader of the Opposition, and I say that the people of the province of British Columbia do want the act that is proposed, and say it without hesitation. It has been repeatedly stated here that the whiskey in British Columbia is no good, and hon. gentlemen refer to it as "prune juice". Two hon. members yesterday afternoon said that they had not known the taste of whiskey for quite a long time. Well, I do know the taste of whiskey, and I am here to say that since the act passed in British Columbia I have got no bad whiskey from the Liquor Control Board of the province. I have never had a drink of poor whiskey from that source yet, and I have taken enough of it to know the difference between good and bad. I can assure the committee that the government in British Columbia is asking for the act; the government desires to get this control. A plebiscite was voted upon by the people of the province and was carried by a majority of nearly 35,000. The people of that province requested the present government to take control of (he liquor of British Columbia, and that same government is in power yet. 'The government feel that they cannot control the liquor situation properly under the present act and they come to this parliament and ask to be given further power. Is that unreasonable? I think that the government of British Columbia are entitled to it.
A great deal of insinuation has been cast at the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia, as well as other members of the local government. I think it should be beneath any member of this House to say a word or cast any insinuation against any member of another legislative body, nor do I think that it becomes any of us to speak disparagingly of those persons who represent the people of the province of British Columbia.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That is a good lesson.


Thomas George McBride: Those gentlemen are not here to defend themselves, and hon. gentlemen in this chamber should bear in mind that if they are to carry the dignity of members of parliament it behooves them to let others alone. Let hon. gentlemen here look after their own affairs. Now, a great deal has been said about the influence that government control is having in British Columbia. One hon. gentleman yesterday wanted to read a whole front page of a newspaper in regard to the matter. I am not going to do that, but I desire to make a few statements in reference to the effect that prohibition has had and is having on some people; it may be interesting for us to know the facts. There is one district in the United States, not a very large district either, where in twelve months 9,401 illicit stills were seized. To carry the whiskey from these stills to the consumers there were in use 309 automobiles, 60 rigs and 93 horses, all of which were seized. These conveyances were carrying the product of these stills around the country. With what effect? In twelve days 103 persons lost their lives through this moonshine that came from these stills, and there were 37 cold-blooded murders in one city on the other side of the international line.
Canada Temperance Act

One prominent public man, speaking in reference to prohibition had this to say:
It is making law-breakers of a large portion of the population, and is helping to create a nation of liars, sneaks and hypocrites.
I think the government is to be congratulated on bringing this bill forward, and I, as one member representing British Columbia here, trust that the Minister of Justice will see that it is carried out as he has submitted it.
Mr. MeQUARRIE: We have been dealing with bootlegging in British Columbia. As I understand it, the decapitated bill will be directed against bootleggers there. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether there is any bootlegging in the province of Quebec?


Lomer Gouin: I do not think the question is relevant.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: What has Quebec to do with you? Stick to your own province; we have had enough of you.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: It has been moved by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQparrie) that subsection 5 be struck out and the following be inserted in lieu thereof:
5a. Upon receipt by the Secretary of State of Canada of a duly certified copy of an order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province in which there is at any time in force a law vesting in His Majesty or the executive government of the province authority for the control and sale of intoxicating liquor in the province or in any board, commission, officer, or other governmental agency, the right of selling intoxicating liquor in the province requesting that the votes of the electors may be taken for or against the following prohibition, that is to say:
"That the importation and the bringing of intoxicating liquors into such province may be forbidden.''
The Governor in Council shall proceed to take a vote on such question in the manner provided in section 152, and the provisions of sections 152 and 152A and 153 shall as far as applicable mutatis mutandis apply to the taking of such vote.
5b. If the prohibition is declared to be in force, the Governor in Council may by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette declare the prohibitions of subsection 1 of this section in that province, and the same shall thereupon be and continue in force therein.
Amendment negatived.


George Black: Mr. Chairman, before the bill is reported I would call the minister's attention to the wording of clause (b) of subsection 2:
The carriage or transportation of intoxicating liquor into and through a province by means only of a common carrier by water or by railway, if, during the time the intoxicating liquor is being so carried or

transported, the package or vessel containing the intoxicating liquor is not opened or broken or any of the intoxicating liquor drunk or used therefrom; or,
Why cut out the motor truck? Is it intended?


Lomer Gouin: It is intended.
Bill as amended, reported, read the third time and passed.


IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 136, to amend the Immigration Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Enemy aliens:
Mr. JACOBS:: Will the minister give us an explanation of this clause?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: It is simply to conform with our regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Deported conspirators:
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister explain the significance of this clause?


Charles A. Stewart: It is simply striking out the addition that was made to the act during the war period. It seems superfluous to retain the addition now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Certain persons to be 4

to belong to the prohibited or undesirable
classes:
Charles A. Stewart: Old section 41 was amended in 1919 by adding a new clause embodying numerous reasons why people could be apprehended and sent out of the country by the Minister of Immigration. It has been taken exception to by a great many people and I thought it well to revert to the old section. Therefore section 3 follows the wording of section 41 prior to amendment at that time.


Mr. CARROLL:: Has any outside influence been brought to bear upon the minister to have this amendment made?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I would not say that; but it does seem to give rather drastic power to the minister, a power that I think in most cases could very well be exercised by the courts. Of course, it may be said that an individual who has not estab-

Immigration Act
lished his domicile in Canada should be absolutely under the control of the Department of Immigration by reason of anything he may have done prior to his entry here, but the department still has very considerable power over such an individual and it was felt that perhaps the courts could deal with cases of this kind.


Mr. ARTHURS:: In view of the fact that section 2 is repealed, which dealt with persons who were or might be regarded as dangerous or hostile to the Allied cause during the war, why should section 3 be continued? For instance, if a soap box orator is arrested he may be deported next day.


Mr. McMURRAY:: Apparently section 3 is a mere repetition of the provisions contained in the old section, which enumerates in detail those who are deemed to belong to the prohibited classes. Why does the minister re-enact this section?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will notice that some of the more rigid clauses of section 41 of chapter 26 are not contained in the section as it stood before the amendment of 1919. For example:
Every person who by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or Canada, or any of the provinces of Canada, or the government of any other of His Majesty's dominions, colonies, possessions or dependencies, or advocates the assassination of any official of any of the said governments or of any foreign government, or who in Canada defends or suggests the unlawful destruction of property or by word or act creates or attempts to create any riot or public disorder in Canada, or who without lawful authority assumes any powers of government in Canada or in any part thereof, or who by common repute belongs to or is suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization.
That comes out; it is not in section 41 of the amended act. Then, coming down to the last part of the old section, these words are omitted:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject, either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
Otherwise the new section 41 is practically the same as the old one. It looked like rather a wide power to put in the hands of any individual, to deport a man on the ground of common repute. I think all the power that any minister requires is contained in the new section 41.


James Arthurs: Why are the words "Canadian citizen" used in this bill? According to the Naturalization Act we are all British citizens, are we not?


Charles A. Stewart: I presume my hon. friend is right, but I simply copied section 41 as it stood prior to the amendment.


James Arthurs: Why copy it.


Charles A. Stewart: Because I
think it covers every contingency that might arise in connection with which the minister would desire to have authority for the purposes of deportation.


Samuel William Jacobs: I can foresee a case, if it
were made wider, where a British citizen from India might advocate the overthrow of the Empire, and so on, and we would not be able to have him deported.


Edward James McMurray: I cannot let this clause pass without challenging at least a portion of it. Sections 40 and 41 set forth those who are not desirable as Canadian citizens and who can be deported on account of their misdemeanors, and bo on. Section 41 as set out in the bill distinctly provides that-
Any person. . . . who shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canadashall be classed as undesirable. In the enforcement of this act, therefore, a British citizen who has been in Canada for less than five years can be deported by an immigration official. The definition of "Canadian citizen" as set forth in the act is as follows:
"Canadian citizen" means-
I.	A person born in Canada who has not become an alien;
II.	A British subject who has Canadian domicile.
In order to get Canadian domicile he must be here five years.


Samuel William Jacobs: Oh, no.


Edward James McMurray: That is what the act
says:
Canadian domicile can only be acquired, for the purposes of this act, by a person having his domicile for at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein within the meaning of this act.


Charles A. Stewart: That applies to persons from foreign countries, not to British subjects.


Edward James McMurray: It says, "having been landed therein within the meaning of this act." If I am right in my contention, and I think I am, this simply provides that a British citizen who has lived four years in Canada and who becomes mixed up in some way with a riot is deprived of his ordinary right of trial by jury an.d can be deported by a mere immigration agent. I think that is putting too great a power in the hands of the immigration offi-
Imviigration Act

cial. There is a provision in the act dealing with cases where deportation may be had on the ground of moral turpitude, but here is a case where a man gets mixed up, intentionally or unintentionally, in a riot, and for that he can be deported without trial. I really think that is going too far.


James Arthurs: I wish to ask the Minister of Justice whether a British citizen is required to be in Canada five years before he acquires Canadian citizenship 01 British citizenship within Canada?


Sr LOMER GOUIN:: No.


Mr. BAXTER:: The only reason why we confine it to Canadian citizenship is that we cannot turn a Canadian citizen out of his own country; there is no place to which he can be deported. But if a man has come here and got the benefit of naturalization and then misbehaved himself along the lines prohibited by this act, I think his naturalization should be forfeited and he should be turned out of the country.


Samuel William Jacobs: He would then be a citizen without a country, because, when he becomes a British citizen, he abjures the citizenship of the country from which he came.


Arthur Meighen: So far as I understand the section, I favour it. It merely declares that anyone not a British subject resident in Canada-that is really what "Canadian citizen" means-may be classed as an undesirable citizen. What, then, is he subject to? I understand, it is deportation within three years after arrival. And what else?


Charles A. Stewart: Does my right hon. friend refer to a British citizen in Canada?


Arthur Meighen: I refer to an undesirable citizen.


Charles A. Stewart: If he were an alien we could deport him during any period up to five years, or until he became naturalized. Of course, the question of domicile, and domicile can be obtained in five years, would have some bearing on the matter. It is very doubtful whether under section 41 as we are amending it we could deport a British subject.


Arthur Meighen: I assume that the old act goes, and I favour that, as we are now some distance from the extraordinary circumstances that justified its enactment. But what is the use of declaring that a man is an undesirable citizen unless some consequence is to follow? The minister says
[Mr. McMurray.l
that if that undesirable citizen happens to be an alien he may be deported up to-well, really up to the time he becomes naturalized.


Charles A. Stewart: No. After five years' residence he becomes domiciled. That has some bearing.


Arthur Meighen: Then he cannot be deported.


Charles A. Stewart: It is doubtful if he could.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I understood. We will assume that is correct. If he is not a British subject, then within five years of his arrival he may be deported, providing he is undesirable. Consequently, it is worth while declaring what will make him an undesirable citizen; I admit that, but that refers only to the alien. What is the use of declaring that some other person, not an alien, is an undesirable citizen if no result can possibly follow from that declaration. What I am getting at is this: The minister is confining it to Canadian citizens. Supposing a British citizen, not a Canadian citzen, arrives here. What is the use of declaring how he may become an undesirable citizen? -there would be no power to visit anything upon him.


Charles A. Stewart: We could deport him.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, certainly. He may make false representations on entering Canada.


Arthur Meighen: That would not be covered by this bill.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course not, but my hon. friend asks what is the use of declaring what makes him undesirable. Pardon me, I get my hon. friend's point why put him in the undesirable class as covered by section 41?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I have
doubts about that. Even in the clause as it stands to-day, which was enacted during the troublous times, it is provided that:
It shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof and of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein any such person may be, forthwith to send a written complaint to the minister, giving full particulars: Provided, that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject
So that even in the most strenuous times it did not apply to the British subject.

Immigration Act


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Charles A. Stewart: -either by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: It applied to the British subject.	[DOT]


Edward James McMurray: That was the only one it did apply to.


Arthur Meighen: That was the reason of the great roar against it. The alien may now be deported if undesirable, and it is worth while declaring what makes him undesirable. But what is the use of declaring what makes this other man undesirable? He may not be a Canadian citizen within the meaning of our law, but the minister is defining what makes him undesirable, and after he is through with that we are where we began because he can visit nothing on him.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend has just argued that the minister may deport him.


Arthur Meighen: No. You could under the old law.


Charles A. Stewart: Under this act.


Arthur Meighen: You. cannot deport him under this act.


Charles A. Stewart: The provision of section 41 applies. I am limited between the argument of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the argument of my hon. friend for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray).


Arthur Meighen: We will take the three classes. There is first of all the Canadian citizen, secondly there is the alien, thirdly there is the British subject who is not a Canadian citizen;-now we have everybody. Coming to the alien, it is worth while declaring what makes him undesirable because he may be deported after this passes. Coming, though, to the British subject who is not a Canadian citizen, what is the use of declaring what makes him undesirable, because after this passes he cannot be deported- he might have been under the old law. What I mean is, this should only apply to aliens.


Edward James McMurray: He could not be deported under the old act, I submit, unless section 42 in the old act is struck out.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Edward James McMurray: Section 42 refers back to section 41 specifically and gives power to a board of inquiry, or any officer acting as such, 155
to deport the particular persons named therein, who are British subjects.


Arthur Meighen: That is the old law.


Edward James McMurray: Yes. And section 42
is not repealed, it still stands.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I thought it was the minister's intention to repeal every phase of that law.


Charles A. Stewart: No, only
section 41.


Edward James McMurray: So that stands now and the provisions in section 3 here apply only to those who are not Canadian citizens, that is, it applies to British subjects and aliens, and under section 42, which is still in the Act, a British subject can be deported from this country upon a mere inquiry by an immigration agent, which I say is an exceedingly dangerous thing.


Arthur Meighen: The minister does not intend to repeal that? I understood that was his intention and the main purpose of this legislation.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not had representations made to me except in regard to the provisions contained in section 41.


Arthur Meighen: Is not the hon. member for North Winnipeg right?


Charles A. Stewart: The really
objectionable feature brought to my attention was the apprehension, on report, of some person belonging to a secret society. I therefore just took the provisions of section 1 as it existed and inserted the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: What I want the minister and the House to understand is this, that if the minister is going to leave section 42 in effect he leaves the whole substance of the previous legislation there. It is not, perhaps, very becoming of me to argue against it because I was responsible for its passing.


Edward James McMurray: And you have repented since.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all, not at all.


Edward James McMurray: I am sorry to hear it.


Arthur Meighen: Sections 41 and 42 were passed unanimously by this House, so that if there is anything meet for repentance on my part it will be meet for repentance on the part of every hon. member who was in the House at that time.

Immigration Act


Samuel William Jacobs: Was it unanimous?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. It was unanimously passed by the House, and rightly passed by the House. I was one of those who, having supported it stood by it and defended it, did not seek to get votes by pretended opposition to it after I had supported it.


Samuel William Jacobs: See where it landed you.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I know; and many another good thing we did lost us votes as well-things the present government is doing now after securing all the votes they could get by opposing them. And apparently this is in the same category as the rest. But when that period passed-and no one should know better than the hon. member for North Winnipeg that the period existed and it did pass; every hon. member of this House knows that we had very serious times in this country for a short time after the war, as they had in every country in the world-but when that time passed the government of the day itself introduced legislation repealing sections 41 and 42, introduced it by a member of the government.


Edward James McMurray: Then there was repentance.


Arthur Meighen: No repentance at ah.
What does the hon. member want to put that word in for all the time? Because we passed legislation for a particular time, and stated it to be so, and the period passing we come and move the House to repeal it, we are only acting in accordance with the dictates of common sense. But the Senate voted it down. I feel safe in saying that a majority of those against it were of the Liberal party.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think not.


Arthur Meighen: I do, and I think I am correct. Of those for the legislation naturally a majority adhered to the government's view. Not all, I know many were opposed to it; but the majority, I think, of those opposed were of the Liberal party. Consequently, the legislation failed to pass. I speak now subject to correction but I think this government introduced legislation repealing it, or was it the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg, tMr. Woodsworth) ?


Samuel William Jacobs: It did not get through the House.


Arthur Meighen: Apparently under the government supported by my hon. friend.


Samuel William Jacobs: The committee reported against it.


Arthur Meighen: The committee reported against it? Very well, that is the situation. And the government appointed the committee. So, apparently, there was no very great sincerity in all the roar there was against the legislation. Let me put that before the mind of the hon. member for North'Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray). Apparently the essential part, the heart, of that legislation is still to remain I am making no particular complaint. Personally I would rather have it go; I do not think there is reason for it now. I am thoroughly convinced that there was necessity for it, thoroughly convinced that it rendered good service, that it helped to tide over a very serious situation, and that under it no specific injustice was done. I do not know whether there was one deported under it or not but it served as a deterrent. If there was any there was none save one whose deportation was recommended by an investigator, a member of the bench of Manitoba. But there was no abuse of the legislation whatever. The antagonism to it was purely political, antagonism for votes. That is now demonstrated by the subsequent repeal of the section.


Edward James McMurray: My right hon. friend is in error.


Arthur Meighen: In what?


Edward James McMurray: That this section applied only to one man. Under my right hon. friend's government it was applied solely to British subjects.


Arthur Meighen: Yes?


Edward James McMurray: To Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotchmen.


Arthur Meighen: Then I was right in my statement.


Edward James McMurray: My right hon. friend approved, and still approves, of the passing of an act that would deport British subjects from this country without trial by a jury.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why not deport British subjects, if undesirable, from this country just as much as aliens? I would be in favour of deporting any person who was undesirable.


Arthur Meighen: What I stated was that I did not think there was any deportation under it but that if there was a deportation there was only one recommended by an investigator; a member of the bench of Manitoba. The hon. member says there was none at all deported.


Edward James McMurray: Not then.

Immigration Act


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what I said.


Edward James McMurray: I think the real ground for not doing it was the protest made by the people of Winnipeg. What absolutely prohibited it from being done was the feeling aroused in that city. I ask my right lion, friend if there were not strong representations from all over Canada to change that policy.


Arthur Meighen: And very strong recommendations not to make any change.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I can hardly understand what the minister means when he says there were no representations made to him with regard to the further amendment of this act. Last year I introduced a bill which was pretty thoroughly discussed in committee and came before this House looking not merely at the emendation of section 41 but to the radical reconstruction of the act. The recommendation of the committee was that the . entire act should be redrafted at the coming session. That recommendation to the House last year is not in any sense carried out by the present amendments, but simply a slight modification of one or two clauses. Again this year I had the privilege of spending some time with the acting minister over some of these clauses, and urged as strongly as I could-and I had a considerable body of opinion be-
5 p.m. hind me-that there should be changes not merely in respect of one or two clauses but of the whole principle of the bill.
It does seem to me that we are here faced very clearly with a large issue, the issue, as to whether citizens or residents of this country shall have the right to a fair trial. I was very much interested to hear the leader of the Opposition say that the time had gone by when this kind of legislation is necessary. We would differ as to whether it was ever necessary, as I take it that the time when we most need the safeguards of the law is when there is some extraordinary excitement. There was a time of hysteria several years ago and it was during that time we needed the law to safeguard men from those who were caught up by the hysteria. It was at that time this law was passed-a law which took away all safeguards and deprived men who had been in this country for years, whether of British or of foreign birth, of the right to a trial by jury. I think it was little less than a plot which was organized at that time that placed on the statute book legislation by which men were to be deported from Canada without trial by jury. However, that is past and if there is a reflection on the Conservative government-the government in power in 1919-for having passed legislation of that kind at that time I would say that the leader of the Opposition is right when he says that the reflection is even greater on the present government when two or three years after that trouble, they refuse to repeal an obnoxious act of this nature. It ought to be known to every British subject of this country born outside Canada that today he has absolutely no right to trial by jury. That has not seemed to enter the consciousness of a good many men who were born outside of Canada. I say "British born" because, speaking frankly, that is a good basis on which to appeal. I do not want to stress that unduly. I think the hon. member across the way is right when he says that everyone -whether British born or alien born-ought to have the protection of the laws in this country. But it does seem to me that the British born should be stirred up a little bit when they reflect that when they crossed the ocean to this country they forfeited this right which we have all been told has belonged to Britishers ever since the time of the Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights.
Now coming to particular clauses I would say that the key to the whole situation lies in the definitions. According to sub-section (i) of section 2-this is chapter 25 "An Act to amend the Immigration Act":
(i) Canadian domicile can only be acquired, for the -purposes of this act, by a person having his domicile for at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein within the meaining of this act.
That would seem to show that any immigrant to this country, whether an alien or a British born person, may acquire Canadian domicile in five years and that having acquired Canadian domicile he is protected. But that is not so because a little further down we find this clause:
-and provided further that no person who belongs to the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of section forty-one of this act shall be capable of acquiring Canadian domicile.
There is where the difficulty lies. It is all very well to say that a man who has been five years in this country acquired Canadian domicile; but if for reasons thereinafter enumerated he is considered to be undesirable within the meaning of the act he becomes incapable of acquiring Canadian domicile whether he has been here five years or twenty years. The safeguards which he ought to have are taken away.
Now if we turn to the other sections, we find that there are a variety of reasons under which people may be considered as being
Immigration Act

undesirable. It is quite true that slight modifications are being proposed in section 41; but the other sections are not being modified, and they will still leave anybody bom outside of this country liable to deportation. For instance, there are these three clauses:
(n)	Persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Canada or of constituted law and authority, or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government, or who advocate the assassination of public officials, or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property.
I do not think any one in th,is House is going to advocate the things which this section' seeks to prohibit. But that is not the point. The point is that a man may be accused of doing these things, and if he is accused of doing these things, he may be deported without opportunity of being heard by a court. What we are arguing for is that he should have a fair trial and be judged as to whether he is guilty of these things or not. I know the attitude of some of us has been absolutely misrepresented in this regard, and that because we were trying to safeguard the individual, it has been said that we are advocating all these things that are being prohibited in this legislation. That is not the case. We are advocating the safeguarding of every man, by insisting that he shall be given the right of trial by jury. The next paragraph reads:	,
(o)	Persons who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or* advocating or teaching the duty, necessity or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or >fficers, either of specific individuals or of officers senerally, of the government of Canada or of any other >rganized government, because of his or their official character, or advocating or teaching the unlawful lestruction of property;
Here again, these things that are mentioned are doubtless unsocial in their character; but the question is one of interpretation. For example, the first clause reads:
Persons who are members of or affilated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government.
That may easily be interpreted as applying to anyone who criticizes the government. As regards the last clause:
Or advocating or teaching the unlawful destruction of property.
Supposing a strike occurred, as, for instance, was the case last year in the Cape Breton district, and the men who were in charge of the property or working on the property quit work. It might be said that there was danger of flooding of the mines, and that possibly destruction of property might be caused thereby.

This clause might be interpreted to mean that any man who advocated that the men should quit work under such circumstances, and possibly bring about a loss of property, would thereby under this clause be regarded as undesirable and liable to deportation without trial. I am not advocating the destruction of property; I am not here defending the man who seeks to destroy property. That is not the point. I urge that a man accused of such things ought to be tried before his peers, given a fair chance to present his case, and not shuffled out of the country without a trial. There is a similar objection to paragraph (p), the next following:
(p)	Enemy aliens or persons who have been alien enemies and who were or may be interned on or after the 11th day of November, 1918, in any part of His Majesty's dominions or by any of His Majesty's allies.
I think that is one of the clauses that, it is suggested, should be changed, and I am very glad that change is being made, because here again certain men, many thousands of them in western Canada who are technically alien enemies feel very bitterly the injustice of being brought under this act. An Austrian friend of mine said to me during the war: "Austria was an enemy of ours"

he was a Galician, a Ukrainian-"long before she was an enemy of Great Britain's. We came to this country in order to get away from Austrian control." This man was technically an alien enemy and, coming under this clause, he was liable to deportation as an undesirable. It became absolutely impossible for him ever to acquire Canadian citizenship, though he might have been five years or twenty-five years in Canada. This question of domicile is to me the most serious part of the act, and one that is not being touched by the amendments which the minister has introduced. It seems to me that we ought to have such a thorough-going revision of this act that it would not be possible for any man who has been resident five years in Canada to be deported without trial. I think that is clear, and a great responsibility is put on the Liberal government of this country if they will allow it to be said, when there is no trouble in Canada at all, that they refuse to repeal legislation under which it is quite possible to deport British-born subjects without trial.


Charles A. Stewart: I desire to have this clause stand, because I was not aware that we were not doing just exactly what my hon. friend is referring to. I have no desire to deport a British subject, even if

Immigration Act
he could come under the operation of this clause, I will take it back and redraft it.
As regards foreigners coming to Canada,
I do not agree with my hon. friend. I do not see why Canada should not decide for herself who shall become citizens of this country. I do not see that the mere fact that a foreigner may have been in Canada for five years, or whatever the period may be until he becomes naturalized and domiciled, should prevent him from being subject to deportation by order of the minister. I see no hardship in that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Even after five
years?


Charles A. Stewart: Not after
five years, because it is his privilege then to become a citizen of Canada if he can qualify. But if he cannot qualify, he must remain in-the same position.
Section 3 stands.
On section 7-Discharging crew without examination :


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is the change in this
clause?


Charles A. Stewart: It is increasing the fine.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: He pays it into the department really.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Deposit as security for return of deserters:
Charles A. Stewart: I have
noticed a number of telegrams in the hands of hon. members, and I have one myself from the Shipping Federation of Montreal protesting against section 8 which provides for fines to be imposed. But inasmuch as the bill is to remain in committee I am prepared to hear representations which, if they are reasonable, I shall be glad to consider. I would point out, however, that we experience considerable difficulty in connection with this very matter. Ship-masters come into a port and are careless about the care of their crew some of whom perhaps desert, and we have great trouble apprehending them at times. The worst feature of this is that very frequently a man who gets into the country in this way is a person who would not be able to pass the immigration officer. We know of a case in point at the moment. A seaman deserted and afterwards became ill; he is now a public charge of Canada and has
been for the past year. I am convinced therefore that we need this section, and I do not think it will create any hardship on shipowners. It will, of course, create a hardship if they allow seamen to desert without duly presenting them to the immigration officer for inspection before entering.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have received the following telegram from the secretary of the Shipping Federation; he says:
Seventy-two thousand seamen passed through this port last season and accounted for under the shipping acts controlled by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Immigration Act gradually usurping control from proper officers under shipping acts causing duplication of work. Each seaman is provided with continuous discharge book with his record as to conduct and ability which is checked up by proper officers at this port at beginning and end of voyage Seamen are regarded as specially privileged class and any interference with them liable cause retaliation by other nations. Respectfully ask before any action taken that the Shipping Federation of Canada be given opportunity being heard before committee of House.


Charles A. Stewart: There is absolutely no attempt on the part of the department to interfere with the Shipping Federation, but we do desire to protect ourselves and I think we are right in doing so. Why should the people of Canada through the negligence of a shipmaster b'e called upon to pay for the care of a mariner who deserts and becomes a public charge? We are simply taking steps to protect ourselves, and if that is an injury to shipping, then I am afraid we shall have to insist on its being done.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that the bill is to remain in committee until a delegation waits upon the minister?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The position of the master of a vessel is a very difficult one. It is rather hard to tell whether any particular member of a crew intends to desert,. During the very short experience I had with the Customs department I know that there were cases that came before the department that were quite painful, where vessels were liable for a fine because of the improper acts of some members of the crew-acts that could scarcely be detected even, by the greatest vigilance on the part of the officers. When you find seamen practically conspiring to leave a vessel, it seems to me you are putting a very heavy burden upon the master or the shipowner if you impose penalties for the acts of members of the crew. Generally they are in a state of antagonism, and certainly the master is not at all likely'' to be in the confidence of the seamen. That is one point
Immigration Act

I would stress. I know that, the minister wants his law to be fair above all things. While I do not ordinarily take the position,, yet I feel that the stress of the war period having passed, it might not be out of place to consider with regard to deportation whether, if not a jury, which is not always the best way of determining questions, at least some form of tribunal of the department, if not a judicial body, could not be instituted to hear both sides of the case before a man is deported. It is usually very easy for an official getting information from one side only to form a prejudice against a particular individual. I admit that he is not likely to be prejudiced; I admit that in all probability, if there is a complaint, the person complained against will be found to deserve deportation. But still there is always the chance that a false story may be given credence and a man may be unjustly used. I think we all agree, irrespective of any shade of party in the House, that the best recommendation for our Canadian institutions is the ability and the willingness to do clear and full justice in every instance. I should like to see an opportunity given every man to be heard in his own, behalf before sentence of deportation is pronounced against him.


Charles A. Stewart: The fullest
jpportunity is given the individual.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That may be, but not under ,he act.


Charles A. Stewart: That opportunity is always given even in cases where we reject people who endeavour to enter the country. There is no hasty taking hold of an individual and bundling him out of the country. I agree with much that my hon. friend has said. So far I have not had to deal with a single case of the kind, so that I have no personal experience in regard to seamen. But I am dealing daily with cases of entry into Canada, where the individual has no claim on earth upon the country but is simply seeking to get into Canada. In every such case we give the fullest opportunity for him to present his case. Not only that; he is kept for a period in which he may substantiate any claims he makes in order that he may establish his fitness to enter the country. It is not likely therefore that we shall be harsh on any person who has any sort of claim upon us. My hon. friends from British Columbia, I might say here will protest most strenuously against any latitude in this matter. They will say that this is one of the methods employed by shipping people to get orientals
[Mr. Baxter.!
into the country without the knowledge of the Department of Immigration. It is obvious that we must be fairly drastic with shipping coming into the ports of the country. What is the incentive for the mariner to avoid the immigration officer? He would be admitted into the country the same as any other individual if he passed through the proper channel, and it is quite evident therefore, in nine cases out of ten, that he avoids the immigration officer simply because he anticipates trouble in being passed. So that the only recourse we have is to be fairly drastic with the shipmaster.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The minister will find, I think, that he has power enough under what we might call the Chinese exclusion act-because that is practically what it is-to deal with Chinese; and by similar means he will be able to cope with Japanese. But the general Immigration Act must deal with people who are not within the prescribed Asiatic classes. I am not finding the least fault with anything the department deems it best to do; I have no criticism to offer because I have no particular knowledge of the subject. One likes, however, to see the law always provide an opportunity for the under dog to be heard, and I think that is only fair. The minister, I am sure, agrees with the sentiment; the only question is as to how far we go respectively in practice.


Mr. LEWIS:: I would make a suggestion
to the minister when he is reconsidering section 3. There seems to be some doubt and difference of opinion as to when a British subject becomes a Canadian citizen. It is fully understood that the alien has the advantage in knowing the specific time when he becomes a Canadian citizen by reason of his being naturalized. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) says it requires five years' domicile for a British subject to become a Canadian citizen; other members on the government side do not agree with him. It seems to me that a clause might well be inserted whereby a British subject living in this country would know definitely when he becomes a Canadian citizen.
Progress reported.


COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the third reading of Bill No. 24 to amend the Copyright Act 1921.
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Naturalization Acts

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon.
friend any objection to the Italian treaty being given third reading?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I think the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was to give the member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) some information on the third reading. The hon. member is not in the chamber. I have no objection to the third reading, myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then No. 25
on the order paper.


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.
On section 4-Repeals:
Henry Lumley Drayton: How does this
matter now stand? I rather understood that the minister was making inquiries regarding certain suggestions as to consolidation of the law.	.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Consideration of this bill stood
over last week on the application of my hon. friend for St. John (Mr. Baxter) that a memorandum be made with regard to consolidating these acts. Such a memorandum was prepared and forwarded to him.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not know whether it will be effectual or not, but the substance of this memorandum in itself constitutes, I think, the very strongest argument in favour of the position which I took that it would be well to consolidate the law. I have gone over the pamphlet with great care and find there are what I might call detached portions of legislation that really have no relation to anything and I think can do no possible good. Then again I find in this pamphlet, which I might call the Red Book, a most absolute misinterpretation of the law. It is really astonishing to me that reputable officers of the Civil Service should send out a document so misleading. I have gone very carefully into the question debated by my right hon. leader and I am satisfied that the statement in the red pamphlet that the Secretary of State can grant naturalization even against an adverse report is absolutely untenable from a legal standpoint. Those who have contended that it was necessary first that there should be a favourable report, and that then the minister might refuse, are absolutely right. No lawyer could possibly give a different opinion.
Now, I should like to call the minister's attention to this white pamphlet. If he compared it with the Dominion act he would find that the words at about line 23, "Provided that the child of a British subject" should go up after line 4. The whole thing here as reprinted is a jumble and does not reflect any credit whatever on those who compiled it. I have gone through the pamphlet section by section and must say that the whole is a very fair almost a literal, reproduction of the Imperial legislation. Some slight alterations are made, as for instance in section 7, where in England they have a committee instead of a commission to investigate the standing of an alien, and the Secretary of State acts directly, while here it is done by the Governor in Council. I cannot see any objection to this; it is pretty much a matter of formality.
The really substantial objection to the bill, however, is in the repeal of pactically sections 19 to 24 and allowing section 25 to stand as the vital part. This committee,
I think, will have to pass upon the question of whether naturalization should be the sole prerogative of the Secretary of State working through any agencies which he may prescribe by regulations, which will be unknown to the people to be affected and to the rest of the public until those regulations are promulgated; or whether we shall have some system, not necessarily a county court judge, but some tribunal which will be local in its character causing as little expense and labour to the person seeking to be naturalized as well may be, and yet providing some efficient inquiry into his standing and character. The bill would be better if the Secretary of State would insert in it that a prerequisite for naturalization should be a favourable report by the secret police of Canada-if such a body exists, and I think there is something answering to that description-or by the mounted police, or if he would prescribe something other than the jiere unrestrained will of an officer of the government. As the office is occupied at present I would not be doing any honour to my own province and I would not be doing justice to the personal friendship which has always existed between the hon. Secretary of State and myself if I made any reflections upon what he might do in his official capacity. I am quite willing to trust him individually, but if I contracted to trust him as Secretary of State I do not know to what that might commit me in the line of succession.


Mr. PUTNAM:: You might come into power.
Naturalization Acts


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: And then things might be a thousand times worse than my hon. friend imagines, because I fancy he has spent the greater part of his life in painting pictures of what one might call imaginary Toryism. As the witches in Macbeth put into their caldron everything nauseous and noxious, so he in his picture has imagined eveiything evil and labelled it "Toryism". But he has painted it conversely from a reflection in his memory of the virtues as he considers them, of the party with which he is associated.


Harold Putnam: The picture I was not painting, and one it would be useless to try to paint, was my hon. friend's imagination.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Do not attempt to gild refined gold, or paint the lily, or commit any of these other excesses. But really, apart from all politics-because this question of the right of citizenship is deserving of a higher type of discussion than the ordinary hustings style -do we not need some tribunal that will be known to the people, that will be readily accessible, and that will pass upon a man's qualifications for citizenship? I do not think that the county courts were bad so far as their dealings with this matter were concerned. I agree that the reports very often were not worth much, but that was due not to any want of care on the part of the judges but to the fact that they had no officer and no money that they could employ for the making of investigations. They have had to deal simply with affidavits or with the persons who were presented to them or came before them. They had to make the best investigation they could under the circumstances, and naturally it fell far short of completeness. I know cases where county court judges have been assiduous in shutting out the class of people whom they looked upon as undesirable, and I give them credit for doing the best they could. The mounted police, however, do not extend to all parts of Canada, and I do not know how you could get a report in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island-that is the part of the universe I know most about. You might get it from a member of parliament, but perhaps he would not know anything more about a man than whether or not he was likely to be a friendly voter, and that is not what we want. The mounted police do not go down there unless they are sent for in a case of emergency. There is a branch of the Dominion police-I do not know what you call it-which assists the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue in the enforcement of the narcotic drug law and that sort of thing, and it is possible that an investiga-

tion under this act might be made by that branch. But that would be a matter of regulation under this act. Why not make it possible to read the statute through and be informed by it what particular officer would investigate a man's character? I should be willing if the minister would provide that what I would call unofficially the secret police of Canada should make a report upon each case and subipit it to the county court judge. There you have effective machinery; you are sure of an investigation. These police know pretty well the malefactors throughout the Dominion, and their work would not be partisan or political. I admit frankly that the section that the Secretary of State desires to preserve is practically an exact reproduction of the British section, and it may be said that if it is good enough for Great Britain it should be good enough here. Well, there is all the difference in the world between the settled, steady and orderly administration of the British official departments and the political interference which has so often occurred in this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend Suggest that there are no politics in Great Britain?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Great Britain is rampant with politics, but there is not very much immigration into Great Britain.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not much immigration?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If there is much immigration into Great Britain, the failure of this regulative system is demonstrated by the millions of pounds that Great Britain had to pay in order to extirpate in time of war the German spies who had got in in time of peace under this very set of regulations, without proper inquiry into their characters. And that is the system that my hon. friend, by inference, supports and wants to have introduced into this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend not think that these Germans could have got into England notwithstanding any such system?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If Great Britain had realized how dangerous these people were and had determined to exclude them, I am confident they would not have got in. My hon. friend will agree that immigration laws can be enforced.


Samuel William Jacobs: Now that Great Britain is legislating in the light of her experience in the late war, why is it that no change has been made with respect to the naturalization of Germans and their entry into the country?

Naturalization Acts


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: My hon. friend will have to ask the statesmen of Great Britain for an answer to that question. If I may again, at my own peril, exercise my imagination, I presume the reason is that Great Britain is to-day, as she always has been in the past, too magnanimous to traitors. I only repeat that in point of form it would be much better to bring down a consolidated measure, even if that necessitated a delay until next year.
I would like the Secretary of State to consider the re-establishment or the continuance of some form of local tribunal such as we are accustomed to, aiding it in any way he likes by reports from any investigators, police or others who can give that assistance. But let us have the investigation in the community where the proposed British subject lives and moves and has his being, where a fair inquiry can be made. Do not let us test the fitness of a man simply by long range correspondence with Ottawa.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: This bill as introduced is a rather innocent looking bill, but it deals wth one of the most important matters that can possibly come before this parliament, namely, our citizenship. The two questions involved are, first, as to the procedure in connection with naturalization, and, secondly,-this is the more important one, it seems to me-whether we are to cheapen or depreciate the value of British citizenship. Some confusion existed in the minds of many hon. members when this bill was introduced because of the contention then made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) to the effect that under section 2 there rested in him an absolute discretion as to the granting of a certificate of naturalization and that this provision was entirely apart from and independent of the provisions contained in sections 19 to 24 inclusive. I submit that a careful reading of the statute would convince the minister that the application referred to in section 2 is really the application that is referred to in sections 19 to 24. Whatever doubt there may be as to the law as it has heretofore existed, there can be no doubt as to the effect of this amendment, which is to place entirely in the discretion of the minister the granting in any and every case of a certificate of naturalization.
If this amendment is accepted by the House then there will be no provision in the statute for investigation. There will be nu publicity in connection with the application. There will be no lapse of time necessary, as now exists, between the filing of the application and the granting of the certificate. The minister pointed out that in some cases the notice
of the application might be posted inconspicuously or might not be seen. I submit that if the notice of application is posted in the office of the Clerk of the Peace and remains there for three months, and the application is then brought to the court and is there dealt with with all the regularity, with all the solemnity and with all the publicity that undoubtedly attends these applications, being read at the opening of the court in the presence of the jurors, the witnesses and the whole attendance at the court, there is a large measure of publicity involved in that. What does the minister propose to substitute for that publicity? Absolutely nothing is provided in this bill. What safeguards are provided? None do [DOT]we find in this bill.
Why are these changes proposed? Who is asking for them? And what is the reason that they are brought forward at this time? It seems to me that the possibilities of the manipulation of naturalization certificates are very dangerous indeed if this bill goes through. If it is passed, what will be its effect and what will be the procedure? We can easily imagine some ambitious political candidate ascertaining the names of all those who are available for naturalization in his constituency, getting a set of forms filled out and coming down to the minister and urging speed and haste in determining these applications, and then going back with a bunch of naturalization certificates and passing them out to these people. I do not suggest that the minister has anything of that kind in mind, but I submit that it is all possible under the provisions of this bill. I do not think the minister ought to allow himself to be led into any such temptation as that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am safe.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He may be able to resist it but "Let him that tliinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would not be tempted even if my hon. friend came and asked me to do this thing for him.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would not expect to be troubled with it because there are not many aliens in the part of the province from which I come. The minister's successor may not be-as capable of resistance to temptation as the minister imagines himself to be in this particular respect. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is possible that these certificates might be peddled for political party purposes, and I do not think the House should pass any legislation that would make that possible. We should safeguard our citizenship, which we appreciate very highly. Our

Naturalization Acts
neighbours to the south have had a rather sorrowful experience I think in connection with matters of this kind. Their citizenship has been depreciated and treated as of little value. We do not desire that in Canada. The alien who comes to reside with us should be impressed with the importance and value of British citizenship, and the responsibility which it imposes. The procedure provided by this bill is not calculated to bring that result. '
The minister in the course of his address when the bill was introduced made some reflections upon the way in which the judges conduct these investigations. Speaking from my own knowledge in the province of Ontario I do not think there is any ground for any such complaint. These applications are dealt with in the same manner as any other item of court business, and the judges give the matter the careful and proper attention which it deserves.
I am opposed therefore to this bill in its present form because it is calculated, I think, to increase the expense in connection with the naturalization of aliens. It leaves the matter entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State or other minister to whom the matter may be referred, and really creates him an autocrat in this matter. It leads to centralization. It removes the safeguards that at present exist in connection with the granting of these certificates, and does not provide for any reasonable or proper investigation before certificates are granted. It is capable of manipulation for political party purposes, and worse than all the most serious objection to the bill is that it tends to cheapen and depreciate the value of British citizenship.


Arthur Meighen: At the last sitting the minister argued that he had power no matter what may have been the report of the judge, under section 23, to grant naturalization, that his power in this respect was absolute, that he did not need any favourable report. I contended at the time, he will remember, that he did under the law as it stands to-day require first a favourable report from the judge before he could exercise his discretion at all, and I suggested that he procure the opinion of the Justice department on the point. May I ask the minister if he has procured it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I may say to my hon. friend
that I did not understand him to ask me to get an opinion from the Justice department.


Arthur Meighen: I suggested it and expressed considerable confidence as to what it would be.
(Mr. H. A Stewart.]


Arthur Bliss Copp: It has not been referred to the Justice department particularly, but it has been looked into very carefully by the legal officers of my department, and they are very strongly of the opinion that the statement I made is correct and that the administration as carried out is correctly in line with the act.


Arthur Meighen: I really cannot hedp but say that the contention in my judgment is absurd. It is so manifest it is absurd, and I suggested at the last sitting that the opinion of the Justice department be procured. There must be some other clause or some other section that has not been drawn to my attention, that the minister has not referred to at all, if that can be the law. I do not think the minister should ask to go on with this legislation till he has produced the opinion of the Justice department on this point. Why, it is the whole point before the House. The minister would surely hardly dare to come to this House and ask that it confer on himself the whole jurisdiction in naturalization without any restraint whatever. Surely he would not. He says that has been the case before. I dispute it. It has not been the case before. Now then if he says I am wrong in that, I would like him to get the opinion of the Justice department of this government. Surely I am not asking for anything unreasonable. Even if the Justice department so rules, while it would be very strong in his support, I take the other view. But he should not come to this House unarmed with the opinion of that department and say to the House that the law as it stood before gave him unrestrained jurisdiction, that he is not asking now for any more unless he has the opinion of the Justice department at least to back him up.
I think this bill is audacious. It is an arrogant request to be brought forward particularly by those who have been ranting against autocracy and order in council government to seek to place in the hands of one of their own number the sole, unqualified control of the citizenship of Canada from this day on, naturalize whom they like and not naturalize whom they do not like, inquire where they like and not inquire where they do not like, ask whom they like and refuse to ask whom they do' not like, get information if they want to or do without it if they so prefer-all that put into the power of the minister in connection with naturalization in a country like Canada.
Canada is a country into which, in the past, we have had large waves of immigration. Our citizenship to-day is a citizenship that has come from immigration, in very large measure from the naturalization of aliens, and to place

Naturalization Acts
that vast power in the hands of a minister
without any restraint or without any necessary preparation at all, is, I say, an audacious and arrogant request and I do not think it should be done. It never was intended before, I do not think it ever was the law before; in fact I feel entirely convinced it was not. I must say that I have observed with pleasure very considerable hesitancy on the part of lawyers sitting around my hon. friend against staking their professional reputations on asserting that under the law as it stood the minister could naturalize without first having received the favourable report of the investigating judge; there seems to be no possible reading of the legislation that will bring that result. So if the minister argues for this at all he should not do so on the authority of the law officers. I do not know who the law officer of his department is, but the law officer upon whom ministers should rely is the Department of Justice. Let the minister bring an opinion from the Department of Justice at least before he asks to go on with this legislation.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When my right hon. friend asks for information respecting any legislation emanating from the government it is only fair that it should be given to him; but when he suggests that in proposing the present bill I am acting arrogantly I do not think he is treating me with fairness. When this bill was up before I stated that the matter was one which had given the department a great deal of concern, and that I was bringing the measure forward for the sole purpose of improving the Naturalization Act which was placed upon the statute book by my right hon. friend. If the proposed legislation is not right I am perfectly willing that any defect should be remedied. If it is wrong to leave discretion in this matter entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State I, for one, am quite prepared to have that wrong righted. But I do say this to my right hon. friend: During the time I have had the administration of this act, I have found that the inquiry provided for under the statute, from the reports of the county court judges that have come to me, has been of no avail or value. Now I am quite willing to accept the suggestion-


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister make that as a general assertion? He may have cases where the reports do not appear to be of value, but surely he does not ask us to believe that the statement is true generally? I have seen the judges in action-


Arthur Bliss Copp: So have I.


Arthur Meighen: Very well. The fact that what my hon. friend says is true in certain cases would not justify the sweeping assertion he has made. I have not seen any cases except those where the duties were carefully discharged.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my right hon. friend will refer to the debates which took place during the passage of the acts of 1914 and of 1919, as well as the act of 1920, he will find that the Minister of Justice of that day and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) took exactly the opposite view and that the investigation, in regard to naturalization, was regarded as a huge joke.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister read the observations which establish that?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I shall be glad to do so after dinner.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BROWN:: I should like to say a few words on this question of Canadian citizenship. To my mind this is one of the most important things we have discussed in this House, and it is time now we were beginning to correct some of the mistakes we made in the past. The mistake we made in the past seems to be that we regarded Canadian citizenship too lightly. Canadian citizenship, and the privileges that go with it, is something that is not to be lightly given or lightly taken away once it has been given. These are two mistakes that were made in the past. Canadian citizenship ought to be a privilege valued very highly by the Canadians, just as Roman citizenship was highly valued. I remember reading of one who said: "With a great price I obtained this freedom." But the man to whom he was speaking was able to retort: "But I was free born." We who are free bom are very proud of the fact; but we ought to urge upon those who acquire Canadian citizenship by a price, that they should also be proud of it. Therefore, it is something that ought not to be too easy of attainment. While I would not like to put any unnecessary obstacles in the way of those who have fulfilled the conditions of Canadian citizenship, neither would I like to make it so easy of attainment that they would consider it as of but little value. Unfortunately, in the past the method by which large bunches
Naturalization Acts

of foreigners have been given Canadian citizenship has not reflected credit upon us, nor has this been done in such a manner as to make those people esteem the privilege very highly.
I would sincerely regret if the bestowal of or the refusal to bestow Canadian citizenship should rest entirely in the hands of one man, no matter how good a man he might be. It would be presumptuous for a layman to undertake to express an opinion as to the interpretation of the law as it stands, although 1 have an opinion of what that interpretation should be, and I certainly have a clear idea as to what I think the law ought to be. I do not know whether the courts have functioned satisfactorily in the past. That is a matter with which I have had very little, indeed practically nothing to do; but if the. courts have not functioned satisfactorily in the past, would it not be better to try to secure such amendments and arrangements as would assure that they do function satisfactorily, and thus make it perfectly certain that the proper inquiry should be made, that the proper steps should be taken, not necessarily with the absolute holding up of the proceedings, but so to delay them as to ensure that everything was done, calmly, deliberately and judiciously? Thus when the time comes for one of these foreigners who have come amongst us, to make his home here and to be naturalized, it should be impressed upon him that it is no small privilege that is being bestowed upon him; that it is something he might look forward to. In this we have again failed in our duty. We might have made it a great part of our educational system to instil into the minds of the children of these people, that it was a day to be looked forward to when their parents and they, through their parents, might enter into the privileges of Canadian citizenship. We sometimes think our friends across the line have gone too far in the matter of flag-waving; but they have laid a great deal of emphasis upon the privilege of American citizenship, whereas we have failed in some degree in the past in not laying sufficient emphasis upon Canadian citizenship and the privileges that go with it. I would wish that this parliament at this time would take such steps in such deliberate manner as would ensure that the next act that appears lpon our statute books shall be such as to fulfil all the conditions of fairness and justice to those that come amongst us to make their homes in Canada, and at the same time such as to ensure that those whom we take into our family, shall be fully impressed with our ideals and institutions, and with the desire 
to help us to make Canada what we would like it to be.


Mr. NEILL:: I presume this is the proper place for me to move an amendment which would take the place of section 4. I would move to insert after section 3 a new section to be known as section 4, reading as follows:
Subsection (e) of subsection (2) of section 7 of the Naturalization Acts, 1914 and 1920, is hereby amended by striking out the first two lines and substituting therefor the following:
(e) Remains, according to the law of any foreign state, a subject of that state.
The original clause reads as follows. This is amongst the list of people whom the minister can de-naturalize, if I may use such a word. I am putting in the words "those who":
Those who remain, according to the law of a state at war with His Majesty, a subject of that state.
In other words, I am applying to peace time conditions that were formerly inserted in case of war. The object of my amendment is to prevent a man from being a citizen of more than one country at the same time. While my remarks apply more particularly to those of the Japanese race in British Columbia, I wish to emphasize the point that I do not want to draw the debate along the lines of the necessity, or advisability, or lack of advisability of oriental immigration, because that has nothing whatever to do with the matter. Neither do I wish to make a plea for or against naturalization of orientals. I may have views on that subject but that is not the point at issue. I wish to confine this debate on the amendment purely to this point: Is it desirable that a man shall be a citizen of two countries at the same time? I might also say that it is about as feasible and reasonable to expect a man to be loyal to two countries at the same time, as it is to suggest that a woman should be faithful to two men at the same time. The propositions are somewhat allied.
We know when a man is naturalized, especially if he is of mature age before being naturalized, he will always retain a certain sympathy for the country of his origin. We expect that even under most favourable conditions. All we ask of him is that he dissociate himself from his country of origin, and show a genuine desire to affiliate himself with the country of his adoption. I propose to show that in the case of this particular race, the Japanese, the Japanese government maintains the closest jurisdiction, -for that is the proper word-control and,
I think I can say, practically government over its nationals in a case like this. They

Naturalization Acts
do not pretend to expatriate them or allow them to be expatriated. I maintain therefore that under these conditions this supposed naturalization of Japanese as British subjects is more or less, and a good deal more than less, a farce.
It is a well-known fact throughout the civilized world that the British Crown stands behind British subjects, and no trouble or expense is too great to right the wrongs of those subjects or to vindicate their wrongful death. But once a citizen of the British Empire has forfeited his rights under the British Crown, once he has alienated himself by adopting th,e nationality of another country, the British government has nothing more to do with him; it takes no more interest in him, but regards him entirely as an alien; which is an absolutely proper course to pursue. I am subject to correction, of course, but I do not believe there is another country in the world which to-day allows a man to be a citizen of two countries at the same time. It may be said that the United States does that, but the case is not parallel. The United States does not naturalize orientals at all, therefore the question cannot arise in that regard. In the United States they have a problem which is somewhat allied inasmuch as there are in that country a large number of Japanese bom in America who claim the right to vote there, and are still Japanese subjects; and there is a strong agitation going on now to deal with the matter. But the case is not exactly parallel to this.
Now, I am going to be very brief and I shall not go into any long quotations from pamphlets or other documents I want to quote however three sentences of the evidence given before the Fisheries Commission in British Columbia last year. There appeared before the commission a naturalized Japanese named Hoyuma Yonemura, who had been naturalized ten years, and these questions were asked him:
Q. Have you ever become expatriated from Japan? -A. No. '	-
Q. And you never made application for expatriation?-A. I did, but could not succeed. That expatriation is in question now in the House of Commons in Japan.
Q. Are all naturalized Japanese in this country still citizens of Japan according to the law of Japan?- A. Yes.
That is the sworn evidence of a Japanese naturalized British subject. Let me now quote from a book called "Facts," the pamphlet alluded to by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) who described it as propaganda. It is got out by the Japanese Consul General in Canada and I
shall not express any opinion as to the merits of it or its good taste, or as to whether or not it is propaganda. I want to quote it, being assured that what I quote is at least as favourable to Japan as it possibly can be made. I cannot be charged with exaggeration in order to prove my case when I quote from this source. I am quoting now from page 34:
The Japanese law concerning nationality. Article 20. In the case of a Japanese subject who has acquired foreign nationality by reason of birth in a foreign country and domicile in that country, he or she may be expatriated with the permission of the Minister of State for Home Affairs.
That is, they can be expatriated from Japan with the consent of the Japanese government. That seems reasonable; all they have to do is to ask permission. Well, there are two objections to that, and the first is that they do not do it. It is never, or hardly ever, done, and that is a fairly good reason for objecting to it. In the United States, which has always been a good example to take in this matter, because they are further along the line in the Japanese question than we are, there are some 90,000 American-born Japanese in Hawaii and continental America entitled to all the rights of American citizenship, and according to a statement made by the Foreign Office-that is to say, the United States Foreign Office, at Tokyo, in September, 1920, there had been only 73 applications from these 90,000 American-born Japanese for expatriation, and permission had been granted by the Japanese government in 64 cases. So that out of 90,000 men claiming to be citizens of the United States with the right to vote there at that time, two and a half years ago, only 73 applications had been made for permission to be expatriated, and of these only 64 had been granted. Does that fact not back up the evidence given by the Japanese during the Fisheries Commission which I have already quoted? I said there were two reasons. That is one of them. As regards the second, I will quote again from this pamphlet "Facts." Article 24 says:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding five articles-[DOT]
One of which I have already read.
A male person of the age of 17 and upwards can lose Japanese nationality only if he has already performed his service in the army or navy or if he is not bound to perform such service.
And there are very few of them who come under the category of not being bound to perform such seivice. As a matter of fact, they are so strict in that regard that any Japanese going home to Japan who stays there
Naturalization Acts

more than 30 days is likely to be corralled and made do his service. There is one exception. If he goes to get a wife for importation into the United States he is allowed 90 days. But if they did expatriate any of their nationals these Japanese would in all these cases be trained soldiers or sailors. Everyone would be a man who had gone through their course of training with all that it implies, not only military training but the essential Japanese education with all the high ideals they inculcate in their people about devotion to the emperor, who is their god, and to their nation.


Harold Putnam: Does that regulation with regard to military training apply even to Japanese born in the United States?


Alan Webster Neill: Certainly it applies. Article 20 provides that a Japanese subject who has acquired nationality in a foreign country by reason of his birth and domicile there may be expatriated with the permission of the Minister of State. But if he is over 17 he must undergo the military training of the Japanese, which is not the very best preparation for citizenship as a British or an American subject. In case that is not enough to prevent the Japanese being expatriated, there is another clause:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding six articles, a person who actually holds a civil or military position can lose his Japanese nationality only after he has lost his position.
That might be considered to apply only to diplomatic positions; but it can also very readily be applied to military positions, in this sense. Those of us who come from the Old Country know that there was a system under the militia there under which a man trained for a certain length of time. After he had put in so many years of service he was placed on the permanent reserve of the country. I do not know, but it is likely that some such system exists in Japan, because every nation that has compulsory military training invariably place its soldiers, after their term of service, on the reserve force. A man in Japan will be registered when in military service as No. so-and-so in such-and-such a regiment of infantry, and after he has completed his training it is very reasonable to suppose that he still remains on the books of the corps and therefore occupies a military position. Whether that is so or not, however, it certainly lends itself to such suggestion and is borne out by the fact I have already cited, that out of 90,000 Japanese born in America only 74 have applied for expatriation, of which number 64 were allowed to be expatriated.

So much for that phase of the question. I might also refer to the evidence prepared by the American Legion, which is a reliable and reputable body in the United States, which evidence was collected to be placed before congress. I won't quote it; I will merely give a summary of it. It appears from the evidence that there practically exists in the United States to-day, more particularly in California, government of the Japanese nation over their nationals in that state of the American union, which is above and superior or at least, extra to the laws of the United States. They have something practically corresponding to a state legislature which meets annually. The work is done by means of organizations. There is a big organization, and there are smaller ones that are tributary or subject to it in various districts, and certain elected members of these bodies meet once a year and pass regulations and so on. Then there is a higher body, something like the state Senate, which also meets annually in the same way. Under this system they levy a form of taxation upon their nationals. They do not call it by that term; they describe the tax as fees; but they have a regular system of taxing their nationals, who by means of membership fees are obliged to pay a certain sum to this Japanese government-for it cannot otherwise be described- which controls the Japanese nationals in the state of California. The nationals are also compelled by the laws which this governing body enacts to register all births, deaths and marriages, and even the movements of individual Japanese. If they move from one section of the state of California to another they are required to record the fact, not with the American authorities but with their own authorities in the state. They also have a precise system of education. The Japanese may go to all the white schools they choose, and as a matter of fact they do. But after hours they must attend their own Japanese school, where they are drilled in the very highest ideals of Japanese nationalism, certainly an excellent education for Japanese in Japan, but by no means a good preparation for either an American or a Canadian citizen.
Now, Sir, I should like to sum up this matter in two questions. Is it possible for a man to be loyal to two countries at once? And, secondly, is it right that he should be given an opportunity even to pretend to do so? It comes back to the old saying in the Bible, "Ye cannot serve two masters". It has been tried often enough, but it has never been successful.


Mr. EULER:: 
Alan Webster Neill: I certainly would not accept the statement of the Japanese that he was forswearing his country because I do not believe he would be doing so. And another thing, our naturalization law does not require that. All our naturalization law requires is that the person becoming naturalized shall adhere to the country in which he is seeking adoption.


William Daum Euler: My question was this: If our law were such, would the hon. member accept the desire of the national rather than be bound by the laws of the country from which he came. If that were in our Naturalization Act, would he not think we should accept it? Over the other he has absolutely no control whatever.


Alan Webster Neill: Of course, this particular amendment does not deal with the naturalization of the Jap. It deals with cases where the minister can say, "Here is a man who is a subject of two nations at once. We will de-naturalize him." That question would have to be raised in the section of the act which naturalizes such a man, and it would be rather difficult to do because the position mentioned by the hon. gentleman would crop up. A Japanese would say "Yes, I have de-naturalized myself," and you would have no way of proving whether he had or had not. But this amendment only deals with those cases where a Jap, as an example, has pledged himself to be a subject true to Canada, and it is afterwards found that he is still adhering to the laws and jurisdiction of Japan. If he wishes under this to get out of that position, all he has to do is to apply to the government of his native country for a certificate of expatriation, which is the form required by the Japanese government. They call it a "declaration of losing nationality" or something of that kind. Let him produce that form showing his government had expatriated him, and then he would-


William Daum Euler: Is it not conceivable that the Japanese government might refuse him
that certificate despite his earnest desire to de-naturalize himself so far as his1 country of origin is concerned?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, the Japanese government have been denying it at the rate of 60 to 90,000;- but I never yet met a Jap who would want to quarrel with his country over such denial-he would still be a Japanese. I would not worry myself as to his relations or his conscience all I would ask is: "Your government says; 'You cannot be. a Canadian citizen unless you are expatriated by permission from us. Very well go and get that permission from your government;, else you cannot remain a Canadian subject.'" That is the position I would take.
Going back to my original argument, which I had about completed, when it comes to a showdown under these conditions which I have outlined, where th^y are absolutely under the jurisdiction of their native country apparently of their owri. free will, I would say: There can be only one question as to which country they will adhere to; they will adhere to their own country, and naturalization, so far as Canada is concerned, will be a farce, and it is highly undesirable to perpetuate such a condition of things.


Harold Putnam: I may have misunderstood the hon. member, but I think he dropped the remark that we would not know whether the Jap had forsworn Japan or not. Of course, that forswearing could take place on Canadian soil.
"Mr. NEILL:	If he forswore himself until
he was black in the face he would still be a subject of Japan because he had not taken the only means of becoming expatriated and obtained a certificate of such expatriation from his native country. He might not be willing to remain a Japanese subject, but he would remain one nevertheless.


Harold Putnam: I understand that, but two courses were put forward by my hon. friend: whether we would exact a certificate of expatriation from the Jap's native government, or whether we "would be satisfied by his swearing away his allegiance to Japan in Canada. I understood the hon. member to say that we would not know whether the Jap had forsworn his allegiance to his country of origin or not. Of course we would know.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Chairman-


Arthur Meighen: Before the minister rises to reply I should like to refer him to what he said before six o'clock. He will recall that I challenged his right to make the statement that the work of the judges under the legislation now in effect-
Naturalization Acts


Arthur Bliss Copp: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: I have not said anything yet.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In effect, that is not what I said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Arthur Meighen: , What! The minister has argued in two sessions of this House that the work of the judges under the legislation now in'effect is not of any value. The minister cannot possibly disavow those words. He said, "The work of the judges is not of any value," and I stated that he should not say it in such general terms, that while there might be individual instances of failure to do the work rightly and carefully, I know myself, and many hon. members know, of judges who have done their work most faithfully and usefully. The minister rose then to state that he could quote the Minister of Justice, speaking in 1914, in support of what he says, as stating "that the work of the judges was a joke." I asked him to be good enough after eight o'clock to make that assertion good.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Chairman, I want to put my right hon. friend right.


Arthur Meighen: I am right, all right.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend will wait a moment. In the first place I did not say that the Minister of Justice said a single word about the work of the judges being a joke.


Mr. McMASTER:: May I rise to a point of order? I do not know whether it is because we have so many distinguished physicians in this House, but more and more the leaders of the opposition and members of the government are adopting the gentle bedside manner of speaking, and those of us in the more remote comers of the chamber are quite unable to hear what is going on.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. gentleman hear me?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No. We generally
hear the right hon. leader of the Opposition, especially when he is directing his acid criticism, but to-night, although the criticism is sorhewhat of that nature, it has not been altogether as audible as it usually is.


Arthur Meighen: I thought I spoke pretty clearly. I stated that the minister before six o'clock had referred to the work of the judges under the existing law as having not been of any value. I had challenged his right to make that general assertion. Admitting
TMr. Meighen.]
that there might be instances of inefficient or careless work, there were also instances, and very many-probably in general-of the careful work that judges usually do. The minister replied to me that he could quote the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Doherty, in 1914, in support of his assertion. I challenged him to do so, and I ask him now to make that assertion good.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to put my right hon. friend right in regard to the statement I made before dinner. I did not say that the Minister of Justice, in connection with the passage of the act of 1914, made any reference to the judges or their work. I did say, however, that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who was Acting Minister of Justice in 1919-I think I am right in saying .that he was Acting Minister of Justice-in connection with the passing of the Naturalization Act in that year made reference to the judges along the lines that I have mentioned. I shall be very glad to cite his remarks in that connection, as my right hon. friend has asked me to do.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the minister said that. If he said it-


Arthur Bliss Copp: I leave it to the judgment of the committee as to what I said.


Arthur Meighen: If he said it, it is not what I heard him say.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I said the member for South Wellington.


Arthur Meighen: The member for South Wellington and the Minister of Justice in 1914.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon; I said nothing of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: And I remarked at the time that the member for South Wellington was in opposition in 1914; he was not in 1919. I am not saying the minister did not say it, but certainly if that is what he said-


Arthur Bliss Copp: The right hon. gentleman misunderstood me, that is all.


Arthur Meighen: -that was not the sound that came across the Table to me. Now, will he tell us what was said in 1919?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will, and I will give what was said in 1914.


Arthur Meighen: I have all of that.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My right hon. friend asked me to state what was said, and I propose to do so. I realize that my right hon. friend has had a wide experience in putting legislation

Naturalization Acts
through this House and has occupied honourable and responsible positions. If he has any suggestions to make, suggestions that are offered with the object of bettering any legislation that comes before this House, I shall be only too glad to consider them. But the question is whether his criticisms have been constructive in their character or whether he is trying to sow the seed of discord by intimating that I am trying to surround myself with more power and authority than I or any other member of the government should have.
I think it is the latter course that my right hon. friend is taking, and in that respect he is not doing justice to himself or to the other members of this committee. I could understand it if a private member who had had no experience as a minister of the Crown was suspicious that some minister might be trying to clothe himself with power with, the idea of bringing advantage to his own party, but I cannot understand any suspicion of that kind on the part of hon. members who have occupied cabinet positions. Surely it is not because they had the same thing in their minds when they sat on the treasury benches?
I hope not. I am desirous of hearing the suggestions that any hon. members wish to offer in connection with this bill.
I say again that the only reason that I have asked for these amendments is to make the Naturalization Act passed by the government of my right hon. friend as workable as possible, to clothe it with as many safeguards as possible, and to facilitate the issue, without confusion or delay, of naturalization certificates to those entitled to them. I was not at all surprised when the suggestion was made that this is a very large power to place in one individual's hands; I grant it. The Naturalization Act and measures relating to immigration are always the subject of a great deal of controversy in this House. The matter of citizenship is a very important one, not only to those who apply for naturalization, but to those of us who are natural-born or naturalized British subjects. It is a question that should be very carefully studied, and it is my desire that the fullest consideration be given to the proposed amendments. This is not the first time that amendments to the Naturalization Act have been asked in this parliament. At the Imperial conferences of 1902, 1908 and 1911 the question was considered of adopting a uniform system of naturalization so that a man naturalized as a British subject in Canada or in the Old Country would lie a British subject in any part of the Empire, and finally that was arranged. I was not a member of this House in 1914, but I was a member here in 1919 when amendments were brought down to the Naturalization Act, and I remember that a great deal of discussion took place on that occasion. In 1914, as will be seen by referring to Hansard, there was also a very long discussion of this question. At that time the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty was Minister of Justice and my right hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition was a colleague of his. I am bound to say that in this case as well as in a great many others you will find upon consulting Hansard that the attitude hon. gentlemen may take on any particular question depends very largely upon which side of the House they happen to be occupying. A number of those who are now my friends occupied seats in this Chamber in 1914 and opposed the legislation that was then brought down by Mr. Doherty for his daring to put into the statutes the very clause that is there now giving entire and absolute discretion to the Secretary of State in deciding whether a man shall be naturalized in this country or not. The 'legislation had a rough and stormy passage and occupied many days and nights before it finally became law. The House divided frequently, I understand, on the different sections of the bill.
On the question whether it is right or wrong, proper or improper, dangerous or otherwise to place absolute discretion in the hands of a responsible minister of the Crown in deciding whether or not a man shall become naturalized I want to read lo my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, as I promised I would do, a few extracts from the debate that took place on that occasion. I do so with some degree of hesitancy because I do not want to take up too much of the time of this committee, but inasmuch as the then Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, stood high not only in the opinion of members of this parliament when he was here but in his native province and in the mind of the public generally, and is also a distinguished lawyer of very high standing and recognized as such throughout the whole Dominion, I should like to present his attitude when the question was before the House as to whether or not it was a proper thing to place this discretion in the hands of any one particular minister. In reply to some criticism that had been made by the leader of the Opposition of that day Mr. Doherty said at page 4146 of Hansard, of 1914: '	,
I do not question that this power might be liable to abuse. Almost any power may be liable to abuse. It may be said that discretionary powers are particularly liable to abuse, but you cannot enumerate all the things that may be good reasons why a man should not become a British subject. If we were legislating in order to - create a right in somebody s

Naturalization Acts

favour it would be proper that a judge should determine it and that the matter should be ended. But we are not. We do not contemplate that a man, because he does certain things, is to have the right to be a British subject. After all, it is a matter of grant by the state. We must either allow somebody to have discretion or we must undertake to specify here and now, and put in the 'Statute, every reason conceivable why it is desirable that a man should not be- a British subject. Then our legislation will assume such a shape that we will have created conditions under which a man shall have the right to say: I must have a certificate of naturalization; I have a right to it-no matter what strong reasons may be in existence at the time, which were not known before, why he should not be a British subject. It is true that we will do our best under the section to see that he shall be of good character, and to make him prove it, but it is obvious that in a country of this size a man who may not be of good character, is not going to the centre, to the place where people are likely to have information concerning his past life, to apply for a certificate of naturalization. The character of this man has been built up and acquired outside of this country very possibly. He is not going to go where people know all about him and his character. That is the kind of men we do not wrant. He may be a refugee and he may go to some remote corner of the country and because there are no witnesses in that remote corner of the country he may be able to convince the judge that he is a man of good character. The Secretary of State may have information that that man is an anarchist or that for any other good reason he is an undesirable. Shall we compel the Secretary of State to say: This man went to the remotest comer of the Yukon and applied for naturalization; there was no evidence brought before the judge to show that he was of bad character, therefore, I, the Secretary of State, have no alternative but to grant him a certificate. If we want to create that soft of a situation there is nothing more to be said. But in the drafting of this act we did not conceive that that would be desired. In the United Kingdom the Secretary of State has exercised this discretionary power from the outset.
That was the statement made by Mr. Doherty when this matter was before the House in 1914.


Arthur Meighen: A very excellent statement too.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It was a very excellent statement defending his action in placing discretionary power in the hands of the Secretary of State.


Arthur Meighen: The	discretionary power
that he placed there.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And he placed full power,
there. The debate was continued later on, and speaking of the application to the court Mr. Doherty said at page 4829 of Hansard, of 1914:	'	'
But the court cannot go any further and declare that the party has a right to be naturalized. It stall rests with the country, through its responsible* government -after all, the Secretary of State is only one of a government that is responsible for what he does-to determine whether or not it will grant to that individual his naturalization. If you take that clause out, then you create a situation where each one of the dominions will be absolutely bound, because a man meets certain requirements which are agreed to be 
essential, to give him naturalization, even though, for reasons outside of the possession of these particular qualifications, the government of that particular dominion or possession might consider that it was not in the public interest for that man or that class of men to be naturalized. In reality the idea was, as far as the dominions are concerned, to reserve to them freedom of action, even when a man met those requirements which the mother country and the dominions generally agreed were essential-but not necessarily sufficient-to fit a man for naturalization. The purpose is to keeft. within the hands of each of the dominions control ever over people who may meet these requirements, to place these dominions in a position where they may be enabled, for reasons that they may consider sufficient, to declare that a person, though meeting these requirements, is not a desirable subject, in their judgment, and to exclude him. While it is true that the Secretary of State is not called upon to g've reasons why he takes a certain course under this provision, it should be remembered that he always acts as a member of a responsible government, and the circumstances under which he acts, if he does act in the	exercise of that power,	will always	be
before the public either for condemnation or for approval. He will act upon his own responsibility and the responsibility of the government behind him, and I think that that is sufficient protection against arbitrary action on his part. As I look at it, this is a power that will seldom, if ever, be exercised; but it is a power hold in reserve which may prove most invaluable to this .country.
And he	continues along	the	same line	tothe end, defending the legislation that he brought down placing in	the	Secretary	ofState absolute discretion to withhold or grant naturalization. That is a part of the act today. It is that part on which we are acting at the present time, administering the law under the	Department of	the	Secretary	of
State. But that is not all. In 1919 amendments were brought down to the Naturalization Act, and if I remember correctly, my hon. friend for South Wellington was then Acting Minister of Justice and had charge, of the bill in committee. The question came up as to how far we should continue to leave discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State to grant naturalization or to refuse it and my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) made this statement which is to be found at page 4267 of Hansard of 1919. Criticisms were then being offered from the opposite side of the House as they are being offered now and the hon. member for South Wellington said:
In answer to my hon. friend's criticism, all I have to say is that nationality and citizenship are questions which should come within the authority of the parliament and the government of the country, and if they have at any time in the past been delegated to the judges, that in my judgment was an improper delegation of the rights of parliament. Parliament should control the nationality of citizens and the question of their franchise. It is just as able to do so as the judges, if indeed it is not better able. It is true that this section vests in the Secretary of State an absolute discretion. The language is absolute in form, but in reality it is just a judicial discretion to be exercised as that of a judge would be because it must be exercised in accordance with the

Naturalization Acts
plain meaning and intent of the act. Those of us who happen to be members of the bai well know that wills, trusts, settlements, etc., where trustees are appointed, case after case comes up in which absolute discretion to do this, that, and the other thing, is granted to the trustee. "Absolute and unfettered discretion" is a commonly used expression, which the courts interpret to be discretion that must be reasonably exercised in accordance with the clear meaning of the document. So it is with an act of parliament. Under this section, the Secretary of State cannot act upon any mere whim, fancy or caprice of his own-
Apparently my hon. friend has changed his mind.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Arthur Bliss Copp: -he is bound to act in accordance with the meaning of the act. He is not by any means unaccountable or irresponsible. As a matter of fact, he is far more accountable and responsible than is any judge in the Dominion-
The Secretary of State, he said, is far more accountable and responsible than is any judge in the Dominion.
-because, if he does not act reasonably-if his action in granting or refusing a certificate is at variance with plain reason, or if he acts without good faith or goes beyond the letter of the law, he will be amenable to this parliament at the very first session after his action is called into question.
Going on further he says:
I do not know of any greater safeguard that can be employed. My hon. friend suggested that the reply could be made that this had been the custom for the last five years.
He is referring to the old system.
It has been the law of the land for the last five years, and I will say that for twenty or twenty-five years preceding that, these certificates were granted by the judges. I want to impress this upon the committee that, knowing as I do the method which was adopted in Ontario during those twenty-five or thirty years in the granting of these certificates, the whole practice became a joke and a by-word.


Arthur Meighen: That was prior to 1914.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I say to my right hon. friend, just as I said before that it was prior to 1914.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My right hon. friend says "hear, hear." I would ask him now by what method can he argue-fertile though his imagination may be-that the investigations held by the judge now are any better than they were prior to 1914? The same judges were acting then in the province of Ontario that are acting now, or a number of them. For that reason I say that it does not lie in the mouth of my hon. friend for South Wellington, or in the mouth of the leader of the Opposition, to criticize the legislation I have brought down to this House and ask them to 156J	[DOT]
consider. I trust I have satisfied my right hon. friend in giving him the information for which he asked just before the House rose for recess.
Now with reference to the act-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My right hon. friend says "hear, hear," and indulges in a laugh. I have seen that old trick played before; it does not affect me.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman through with his argument?


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my right hon. friend will wait I will give him-*


Arthur Meighen: I thought the minister was going to refer to something else.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In reference to the amendment before the committee I want to say, that personally I am not particularly wedded to the system which has been proposed to the committee. I have given the matter the very best consideration I could. I have conferred with my officials who had charge of this branch of the public business under the control of my right hon. friend and Inis colleagues. I am told and I am assured by those officials that the system is carried on now in exactly the same way as before. My right hon. friend well knows that the minister knows nothing about these naturalization cases unless some particular question arises and is referred to him. I am informed that has been the practice ever since this Naturalization Act has been in force in Canada. I have tried to follow in the same course, taking the recommendations from my officials in regard to naturalization just as other ministers take recommendations from the officials in their departments. I do not care whether the committee places this responsibility on me, or on some other public official, but I do say this-and I am as certain of its accuracy as I am that I am standing here to-night -that if any other hon. gentleman within the sound of my voice had charge of the administration of the act as it is to-day he would find that it is not being carried out in the best manner possible. I have no fault to find with the judges; I have no quarrel with them. My right hon. friend says that he has been in court and heard the judges in these cases. So have I, and I want to say to him that in the eastern section of Canada, where we-have not a great number of applications for naturalization, the procedure is not so cumbersome or so unwieldy as in some other places. Is it the desire of my hon. friends

Naturalization Acts
that persons who come to Canada, and remain here for the length of time prescribed by the act, should be given the opportunity to become British subjects? If so, I say that their applications should be given the very best consideration, and it should be made as easy as possible for such persons, if qualified, to obtain naturalization.
During this debate a number of hon. gentlemen have declared that a man should prize British citizenship very highly. So he should, but I do not see that we should put any unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of his acquiring that citizenship. I grant that an application for naturalization should be surrounded by every safeguard, and if any hon. member can suggest a greater safeguard than is provided in this bill I shall be glad to give that suggestion consideration, and if . possible accept it. But I maintain that if it is the desire of the people of Canada to grant naturalization certificates to those who, after careful inquiry and examination, are found to be entitled to them, you must have some other arrangement than exists at
9 p.m. the present time. At present a man who has lived for ten years in Canada-under the bill the period of residence is five years-and is a law-abiding citizen who wants to become naturalized has to make application at the county clerk's office at some central point in a province. That application has to be posted for three months in the office of the clerk. Now, that system may be a proper one but so far as I can study and understand the question, I do not think the notice is worth the paper it is written upon. No one goes ipto the clerk's office and examines it. In the act of 1919, I think, provision is made that, besides being posted in the office of the clerk of the county court in the respective sections throughout the country, it should be posted in the post office. When people go down to the post office, how many read the notices posted up? Nobody reads them, so that this is an absolute waste of time. When the time arrives that a man is entitled to naturalization, he should be given that naturalization with the least possible trouble to himself, although he should value and, I have no doubt, values the citizenship very highly.
Only the other day the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) rushed to the defence of the judges whom, according to him,
I had so maligned, because I said their investigation was not of a very definite character. He said:	"Well, I have sat in court and
listened to judges interrogating witnesses and they are very careful in making the inquiries

One judge aske4 a man whom he had voted for at the last election and how he would vote at the next election." Of what interest would it be to a judge making an inquiry in regard to naturalization to ask a man how we would vote. That is just a sample. I have practised law myself at times, and I have a very fraternal feeling for my brother barrister; but I know this is true in my section of the country and I am informed that it is true in the West, that a man applying for naturalization, besides going to the clerk of the court and paying $5 on his application, must also employ a lawyer to plead his case before the judge. If that is so, then that is one of many reasons why applicants for naturalization should not be compelled to employ legal assistance and counsel to present their case before the judge. At the present time there are in this country, and particularly in the West, many .cases where people have to travel 50, 100 and in some cases 200 miles to get to the courts. If that investigation were of any advantage, it might be continued; but I may tell the committee in all sincerity that in nine cases out of ten the investigation is of no particular advantage to the department, and the department makes its own inquiry and decides the question on the inquiry which it makes. I am not here to say that every judge before whom an applicant goes to present his case for naturalization, does not give the matter some inquiry and attention. Many returns and reports that come from judges are fairly full and acceptable; but in many instances that is not the case, and the department has to carry on its private investigation in regard to the qualifications of an applicant for naturalization. The department is responsible for the naturalization, and for that reason it takes great care to see that every applicant is properly qualified before a naturalization certificate is granted to him.
I am not very particular in regard to this matter; it is of no special concern to me, or, indeed, to any person in the East, because in the East the country is pretty well settled and the courts are handy. The situation in the East is different from that of the far western country where the facilities are not so good. In the second place, we have few applications made for naturalization in the East and, therefore, I have no personal interest in the matter. As regards the insinuations made concerning this power being vested in the Secretary of State who, at the moment, happens to be myself, I am sure no hon. member on either side of the House thinks

Naturalization Acts
that one of ua would stoop to any such conduct as- to try to bring in hundreds of naturalization papers, as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) said this afternoon, and have those people naturalized just before an election for the sake of getting their votes. My hon. friend, I am sure, does not practise that in the model province of Ontario from which he comes, and we do not practise it in New Brunswick, as the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) will bear me out. Tnat is not how elections are won. If hon. members who are more particularly interested in this subject, are not satisfied to vest that power in the Secretary of State who, for the moment is myself, I ask them to consider whether or not it should be vested in some responsible head, who should be given power to grant certificates of naturalization as soon as by sufficient inquiry he is satisfied that applicants are entitled to naturalization.
Before I sit down, I want to refer for a moment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). As my hon. friend well knows, the whole question of naturalization is interwoven with the Imperial statutes, and agreements made with the intention of getting our naturalization laws as uniform as possible in the Old Country as well as in the colonies. I have a number of other matters to consider, and before this amendment is finally dealt with, I should like to consider it according to the agreements and laws regarding naturalization throughout the British Empire. I shall be glad to consider the amendment; but before accepting it I would have to consider it a little more fully, and, therefore, if no other member wants to address the committee on the subject, I am prepared to move that the committee rise and report progress.


Arthur Meighen: The minister, after such a triumphant demolition of all his enemies wants to cut short the discussion-


Arthur Bliss Copp: No. If my right hon. friend wishes to speak, he can go ahead.


Arthur Meighen: I know he considers it a matter of considerable temerity on my part to dare to reply-


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would not be sarcastic if I were the right hon. member. That does not get him anywhere.


Arthur Meighen: We will try to get somewhere. The only thing I despair of is to get the minister to admit it after I do get somewhere. I have not the least doubt where the intellects of hon. members will stand on
the points at issue. I do not expect for a moment that I will convince them that they should vote against the minister's bill; but I will convince them that the minister has made no case whatever in executing the pledge which he gave before six o'clock. He stated before six o'clock that he would be able to show out of the mouths of the former Minister of Justice and the former Acting Minister of Justice, that the work of the judges under the present law-


Arthur Bliss Copp: I said no such thing about "out of the mouth of the former Minister of Justice."


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member did not, his remarks at the time had not the slightest reference to what I had said just before, to which he offered them in answer.
I am going to deal with the minister's remarks. He directed them, instead of to the point at issue, to an endeavour to show out of the mouths of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the former Minister of Justice that his view of the law is correct and that my view of the law is wrong.
Now, I ask the House to understand first of all what the two views are. I think the minister understands what they are, but he did not seek to make it clear to the House at all, because had he done so the quotations that he made from both hon. gentlemen would have shown him clearly to everybody's mind to be wrong. The two views are these. I state that the law is and has been this since 1914, that to secure naturalization a man must apply, under section 20, through the court; and he must under sections 21, 22 and 23 make good before a judge his right to naturalization. He must secure from the judge a certificate favourable to his naturalization, which certificate must be transmitted to the Secretary of State. All these requirements must first be complied with as matters of procedure; and when he has secured that favourable certificate from the judge and it has been forwarded to the Secretary of State, then the Secretary of State has absolute discretion to say yes or no on the question of naturalization; but until he does secure that favourable certificate the Secretary of State has no discretion whatsoever. I hope that is quite clear.
The Minister, on the other hand, says that this is not the law at all. Under the law, he states, as it has stood since 1914, the Secretary of State, no matter whether that man has gone to a court and got a favourable certificate or not, can grant naturalization or
Naturalization Acts

refuse it. The House sees the difference. The old law provided that a favourable certificate should be given by a judge, and from that moment the minister's discretion was absolute; the act declares the matter to be in his absolute discretion from that point on. But until that point is reached the moment for the exercise of discretion on the part of the Secretary of State never arises.
To show the appropriateness of the two quotations the minister submitted, a little history of our law is necessary. Up until 1914, with the passing of the act of that year, the consolidation, which is our' present law, the way a man	secured naturalization	was	tomake an affidavit of his qualifications and file it with the clerk of the court, where it remained for a time, I think three weeks,- a definite period at any rate. At the expiration of that three weeks, without the man going to the	judge	at all or	even	to	thclerk of the	court,	somebody	for him,	anagent even, could go and secure from the judge, and I	think	from the	clerk	of	the
court-at least from the judge,-a certificate of naturalization. I have briefly stated the law that prevailed up to that time. In a word, there was no necessity for personal appearance at all, and the judge could grant the certificate to an agent of the person seeking naturalization. The Secretary of State had nothing to do with it at all; and all that the judge needed to have under the act was simply an affidavit filed by the man. In 1914. the statute was passed which, in all its essentials, is the law to-day. It provided that the applicant should file with the clerk of the .court-he did not need to go there to do it, he could send it by an agent-an application requesting naturalization. That application, with whatever is required to accompany it, is posted up for three months in the courtroom. At the end of three months that man must appear before a judge, and he must appear in person, unless for one reason and one reason only, which I shall read just as it is in the statute:
Unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that he is prevented from so appearing by some good and sufficient cause.
So that in general the applicant must appear himself, and if he does not appear it can only be for some cogent reason. On the evidence given before the judge his fate as to naturalization is decided. If the judge is satisfied he forwards a favourable report. But he does not grant naturalization at all; he simply forwards a favourable report to the Secretary of State, and it is for the Secretary of State to say yes or no. He can further investigate 	1
if he wishes, and he is absolutely empowered to grant application or refuse it once he has received that report. Such has been the law since 1914.
Now we come to the quotations the hon. member made. He could not have read better or more apt expressions of opinion than those which he read from the former Minister of Justice. The former Minister of Justice clearly showed that all-* that the Secretary of State could do, everything that came within his power to do, was only by virtue of the report from the judge; and the only thing that the Secretary of State was in a position to do as against the recommendation of the judge was to refuse the application. But if the judge was opposed to the application the Secretary of State had no power at all to grant naturalization; and as a matter of fact the matter never came before him in the absence of a report from the judge. The language used by the former Minister of Justice, let me repeat,-and I should like the hon. member to read it again-


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have read it.


Arthur Meighen: But read it to the House so that its meaning will be clear. I say, he could not have used language which made it more apparent that the Secretary of State is wholly in the wrong and has no power under the present law, in the absence of a report from the judge, to grant naturalization. The language of the acting Minister of Justice of 1919 was just the same; he did not deal with the point at which absolute discretion arose. It is true he used the words "absolute discretion." Why? Because it is in the act. The procedure sections are there; the absolute discretion arises when the procedure sections are complied with; then and not till then. This surely must be clear to every hon. member.
Now, I ask hon. members to consider this point: It is one thing to give the Secretary t.f State power, if he has the information Tudge Doherty referred to in that very language quoted, information from the land from -which the immigrant came against the character of the immigrant, and which information could not have come to the knowledge of the judge, to deny the applicant his naturalization. It is another thing to allow the minister, no matter what the judge's report may say against the man, though it may clearly advise that he be not granted naturalization, to naturalize notwithstanding, and thus get rid of the judge altogether. In a word, the discretion on the part of the Secretary of State to refuse naturalization even in the face of a favourable report is one

Naturalization Acts
thing; that guards the gates to naturalization. But to give the Secretary of State, without any report at all, without a judge having anything to do with the matter whatev^-, power to naturalize an applicant is simply to permit the minister to go around the country with * the oil of naturalization anointing whomsoever he' likes into the citizenship of Canada. That is what the minister is asking us to allow him to do. He says he is absolutely innocent in doing so. I am not charging him with any criminal guilt at all, and I never did. But the thing is wholly unsound. No one on the government side, no member of the government ever suggested to the House that the minister should have power to grant naturalization save only when the right to naturalization was certified to by a judge of the land. I know it was opposed by the Secretary of State. Whether he spoke personally or not I do not know; I have not the least doubt he voted against it, because he says there was a vote on the question.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I was not here in 1914.


Arthur Meighen: Well then, a certain embarrassment that otherwise would likely have been his he has escaped. It was opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite-I thought unreasonably opposed-but the same hon. gentlemen now are asking not only to let that discretion be in the hands of the minister but to give him a positive right to make citizens at his will.
Now, the two cases are clear before the House. I do ask this House to affirm that we never ought to place in the unrestrained hands of any minister of any government the right to make citizens in a country like this where we have waves of immigrants coming from all parts of the earth and where the right to citizenship involves the franchise. It is a right that no minister should ask to exercise, and I think no House should grant. But 1 am quite prepared to leave with the minister the power that has been his all along to sajr, even after a judge reports in favour of an applicant, "We have information which probably was not before the judge, and although he reports in the applicant's favour, we denv him the franchise for the present at least or for good." I am quite prepared that the minister, shall have that power, but not more than that, because I think that is the utmost discretion he should enjoy.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is my right hon. friend aware that this procedure is followed in the Old Country and also in Australia and Newfoundland?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what is done in Australia and I am not certain of what is done in Newfoundland. I do know the system was sometimes followed in the government of the Old Country, with what results I am not aware. But the Old Land is different from our country. How many immigrants have they over there in relation to their population?


Arthur Bliss Copp: They have a large number of immigrants entering Australia.


Arthur Meighen: They have a lot more than we have and they will probably change their law. I do not know what the law in Australia is. I would not like to take the minister's word for it because I do not think he can be accepted as an authority on Australian law before he is a better authority on the law of his own country.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am not quoting the Australian law from my own personal knowledge, but I have had it looked into and I think I am safe in saying that that is the law there.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I have the feeling that the right hon. leader of the Opposition should be the last one in this country to offer the language of reproach in regard to naturalization. He accuses the minister of a desire to obtain the right and power of going around with the oil of anointment to anoint people into British citizenship. When the right hon leader of the Opposition was instrumental in taking away the right of naturalization, of voting, from people, did he hold any preliminary inquiries in regard to those from whom it should be taken away? I do not think so. My recollection is that vast numbers of respectable Canadian citizens were a very few years ago bereft of their right to vote in a very drastic and summary manner. However, if there is one thing I dislike in the world it is the tu quoque argument-the pot applying to the kettle the term black.


Arthur Meighen: I did not ask for power to decide who should vote. Parliament enacted general legislation determining who should have the franchise. There was no discretion in the hands of anybody.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is an example of the method in which the learned and honourable gentleman excels-fendre un cheveu en quatre; he cuts a hair into quarters-because of course the right of being a British subject was the fundamental essential for having the right to vote. But I did not rise especially to make this remark; rather to express, I trust, a quite disinterested opinion on the
Naturalization Acts

subject. I have not examined it carefully and I am not sure that we have the best method now, but I do not like the idea of placing all the powers of naturalization in a central office. I do not like it. It does not appear to me to be consistent or consonant with our mentality, with our procedure in the past, nor with our traditions. I am not going to bring forward any new plan, I have not examined the question sufficiently, but I ha,ve absolute faith in the fair-mindedness of the minister, in his desire to look at things in a broad, generous, fair and proper fashion, and if the present system imposes hardships on those who desire naturalization, if it is not functioning properly, I would ask him to look into it; but I would also ask him not to press the method of having all the naturalization come out of one central office.
How is this central office to make investigations? It must make investigations with a personnel that is wholly dependent on that office or on the government. It seems to me that the fitness for naturalization, if it is to be the subject of inquiry-and it has to be- should be the subject of judicial inquiry, of inquiiy which is unconnected with the executive. I think it is a sound principle that the executive and the judicial functions should be separate. I rise in the hope that what I have said may have some influence on the minister. I do not like the scheme. I am quite prepared to say that the present method may not be functioning properly in certain parts of the country. Well, if that is so, let us set to work and amend it; but it seems to me to be rushing from one extreme to another to centralize our naturalization work and place power in the hands, of one office.


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Chairman, listening to this debate I cannot help thinking that it is an advantage sometimes, to have no past, and it is also an advantage because you can at least approach the subject without any preconceived ideas or prejudices. I have listened to the rather lengthy explanation of the Secretary of State to-night respecting this matter. I had not the privilege before dinner of hearing the debate. However, so far I see no reason to change my ideas. I recognize that there are members in the House whose constituencies cover a very extensive territory and they may see difficulties in the way of getting applicants before a judge to be naturalized. At the same time I still believe that British citizenship is something so valuable, so much to be prized, that anyone who wants it ought to go to the trouble of getting it in the right way. I do not know that there is
LMr. McMaster.]
any such particular hurry to naturalize those who come to our shores from foreign countries, more especially when they are unable to speak or read English.


Arthur Bliss Copp: You cannot naturalize them unless they can speak or read English.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: English or French.


Arthur Bliss Copp: They musj; speak one language or the other.


Robert Forke: The minister referred to the incident of a judge asking an applicant how he voted at the last election. I do not know that that was such a ridiculous question after all because he would probably find that the applicant did not know which side he was voting for. I am not saying this in a derogatory sense of our foreign-born citizens because they are j usf as intelligent perhaps as our native-born in many ways. At the same time our politics are sometimes so difficult to understand even by native-born Canadians that I do not wonder at some of our immigrants experiencing a great deal of difficulty in understanding the political situation.
The hon. Secretary of State read a long extract from Hansard, and following his example I am going to read a short extract from the Manitoba Free Press, which has perhaps as large a circulation as any newspaper in western Canada and whose editorial staff should be in a position to understand the con-dions in that western country where the great bulk of our naturalization takes place. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will read this extract:
Hon. A. B. Copp, Secretary of State, says that at present the judicial investigations are often so perfunctory and unsatisfactory that the department is obliged to make another investigation on its own account. If that is the case the remedy is not to abolish the investigation before a judge but to take steps to see that an adequate investigation is made and all the necessary evidence produced so that the judge's recommendation will always have real value. Mr. Copp also says the government has no desire to gain the right to say who shall be admitted to the franchise, but that it should be made easy to secure naturalization and that annoying i estrictions should be removed. The minister can hard'.y be so innocent, however, as not to recognize that the public hearing before a judge is a safeguard for those who have qualified for naturalization and that the abolition of the judicial investigation would leave an opening for serious political abuses. Under the proposed plan the investigation would be made, presumably, by an official of the department. In theory it would be a strictly impartial investigation and the minister would decide each case on its merits alone. But past political experience has shown that it is not wise to depend too much on theories. In those parts of the country where the majority of the electors were friendly to the party in office there would be a very great temptation to the more zealous party supporters of the party

Naturalization Acts
-particularly if an election were in prospect-to endeavour to influence the investigation or the action of the minister so as to deny, or postpone, the naturalization of persons who were believed to be not in favour of the government. Without the safeguard of a public, judicial investigation it would be possible for such corrupt efforts to meet with a considerable measure of success.
It is not necessary to suspect the motives of the government in making the proposal in question, but it is obviously ill-advised. Canadians just now are too desirous of getting rid of some of the old political abuses to welcome the opening of opportunities for new ones.
That expresses my views more concisely and in better language than I am able to express them. I do not object to this proposal of the Secretary of State merely in a spirit of opposition; I do so because I honestly believe that it will be dangerous and not in accordance with what is right to place the power of naturalizing foreign-born subjects in the hands of any one minister, either now or at any future time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Secretary oi State (Mr. Copp) suggested a little time ago that it was very largely in the West that this matter had any considerable application. I think we ought to get away from the merely legal or technical side of 'the measure and consider the effect of the proposal on the large number of immigrants who are already in this country and others whom the government is seeking to bring here. There has been a tendency in the course of this discussion to regard the immigrants as being of a lower type intellectually than we are and as having lesser attainments along political lines than we have.


Robert Forke: I do not think I heard that statement made in the House, this afternoon, anyway.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Further than that, there has been, at least on the part of some, a feeling that some of these immigrants may be possible criminals and that a very careful investigation ought to be made before they are granted citizenship. I would remind hon. members that a large number of our immigrants come to us from northern Europe and from the United States; that they are self-respecting, intelligent citizens, accustomed to a high standing of political life in their own country, and that they come here expecting to be granted similar rights and privileges in the country which they hope to make the land of their adoption. Under our existing law we ask them to wait for five years before they can be granted the full privileges of citizenship. I think that in regard to a very considerable number of immigrants that provision works a good deal of hardship. Five
years is a long time in our young and rapidly developing country for a man to be engaged in agriculture or in any other industry without having the privilege of a voice in the affairs of the country and in the making of its laws through the sending of their representatives to parliament. I would not say that those people who are more backward, who have no knowledge of our parliamentary institutions and perhaps but a slight knowledge of our language, should not be required to wait that length of time, but I would emphasize that five years is a long time to keep a great many prospective citizens waiting. Then, when they reach the end of that five years they find it extremely difficult, in some instances at least, to obtain their citizenship.
I think of one particular case of a gentleman in whose history I have been a little bit interested-and I am sure the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) will bear me out; we were discussing this matter not very long ago-a gentleman who is a graduate of a Canadian university, who is spoken of in the very highest terms by the professors in that institution and yet who is unable to obtain his papers, because of the arbitrary decision of the Secretary of State. The gentleman to whom I refer occupies a position of responsibility with a reputable organization, yet, after a good many years in this country, after qualifying himself for a first class position by attendance at a university, he is unable to obtain the citizenship which Canada ought to grant to him. The Secretary of State suggests that he is responsible to this House in regard to his action, yet I take it rhat in practice it is extremely difficult for those of us who want to see that justice is done to these immigrants to have the decision changed when it comes to a particular case of this kind.
I would further like to call the attention of the committee to the relationship of this naturalization law to other laws on our statute books. For instance, we have an Immigration Act; and we are told that we do not need to worry very much about men who are liable to deportation, because if they stay in this country for five years they may become naturalized. They may; but on the other hand, if they are naturalized under present regulations which have existed for a considerable number of years, they may be denaturalized at the will of the Secretary of State. We talk about British citizenship being held in high repute, and I think we all in this House hope that that may be case. But the alien who is coming in here and is anxious to obtain Canadian citizenship cannot hold it as a very valuable thing when at the instance of one
Naturalization Acts

man he may be denaturalized and thereby lose all the rights and privileges which ought to come through the obtaining of Canadian citizenship. That is one of the points that comes up in connection with the Immigration Act; these two acts dovetail one into the other. So I would emphasize that the non-Canadian-bom immigrant who comes in here not only has no rights during the first five years of his residence, but may, even after be has been naturalized, have his rights taken away from him by arbitrary action.
Up to the present the arbitrary powers of the Secretary of .State have been largely confined to the taking away of naturalization, but by this proposed amendment he will have it in his power to refuse naturalization. Surely if we are really living in a democracy the friends and neighbours of the immigrants, those people of the same community ought to have the right to decide whether or not a man should obtain citizenship. In some debates on the floor of this House we have had the rights of the provinces very jealously guarded. I would like to think that the communities ought to be guarded so that people out in my own province, for instance, would have a perfect right to take into their fellowship those whom they think suitable for that citizenship. It might very readily be that the ideas of the people in my own city of Winnipeg or in my own province of Manitoba might differ from those of the people in Ottawa. I think then that we in Manitoba ought to decide who are the right and proper persons to be taken into the citizenship of Manitoba. I think it can be readily seen that some of the opinions at least of the residents of the province of British Columbia differ from those of the peoples in eastern Canada. Although I cannot agree with all the positions of the people of British Columbia I would say that to a very large extent the people of British Columbia ought to decide who are the right and proper persons to be taken into their citizenship. The whole thing ought not to be left, to the arbitrary power of the Secretary of State.
We have had a good deal said there with regard to the necessity of keeping out undesirables, of being very careful to safeguard the rights of citizenship. I agree with a good deal of that. On the other hand I would like to point out to you that we ought to be eager to admit to citizenship every worthy resident of Canada. We have had a good deal of talk in recent years about the necessity of bringing about reforms through constitutional means. I would suggest that if you do not enfranchise the people they [Mr. Woodsworth.J
have no opportunity of bringing about the reforms which they desire through constitutional means. I have been trying as best I can to represent one considerable section of this community, the Labour people, and I have found as I have gone in and out of a good many camps in northern Ontario, in Nova Scotia and away out in British Columbia that a very considerable proportion of the people who are engaged in the work of this country are without the opportunity of really doing anything through what we term constitutional means. The same thing is true of a very considerable number of people in the agricultural districts of the three prairie provinces. We say to them: Use the parliamentary machine; elect your members to parliament. I have been trying to say that to them, and they retort: We are without the vote; we do not find it possible for us to obtain the vote. Thus we are rapidly coming to the position where if this political franchise is not given men will be driven to take action along other lines. I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that whilst we try to safeguard the franchise, whilst we try to exercise reasonable precautions in admitting people to the citizenship of this country, there is another danger, and that is that wo make a very considerable number of the people of this country feel that it is hardly worth while. By making it too difficult we almost compel them to attempt to bring about what they desire in this country through means other than those which we call parliamentary.
I am not going to speak at length with regard to the centralization of the whole of this authority. I would join with others who have spoken on that and ask that the Secretary of State reconsider this whole matter.
I think it is for him to work out a scheme whereby people in the local districts would have a right to admit or reject people to their citizenship: We have the responsibility here of protesting against the centralization of all authority in the hands of one man. In Canada we are a great people of between eight and nine millions. We are throwing open our doors and saying that we hope to have hundreds of thousands of people take up their residence among us and ultimately become citizens of Canada. It seems absolutely absurd that we should say that one man out of the eight or nine millions of people in Canada is to have the absolute decision as to how many people and what people shall come in through the gate of citizenship and whether or not when they do come in they may be ejected at his will.

Naturalization Acts


Harold Putnam: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the proposed change does not enlarge the power of the Secretary of State to deny naturalization?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I understand it, he has the power to denaturalize.


Harold Putnam: The hon. member dropped some remarks which would imply that the power of the Secretary of State to deny naturalization was enlarged by this act. That of course is not so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As a matter of procedure, is he not seeking to secure more power?


Harold Putnam: To refuse naturalization?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not to refuse, but to say whether a man shall be admitted to naturalization.


Harold Putnam: It is the same thing. There is no proposal here to enlarge that power of denial.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My point was that he already has the power. At least upon his recommendation a man may be denaturalized. Here is the clause to which I referred:
Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions 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, was
Among a number of other things,
not of good character at the date of the grant of the certificate.
There is nothing specific as to what is intended by good character. It simply means that if any man is obnoxious to the Secretary of State or indeed to the party in power at any particular time he may be declared to have been not of good character at the date of the granting of the certificate, and without any trial whatever the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Secretary of State may cancel his certificate of naturalization.


Harold Putnam: I rather took it that the major burden of the hon. gentleman's remarks was a complaint about the ungenerosity of our naturalization laws, and, perhaps inadvertently, he dropped remarks which could only mean that the power of the Secretary of State of denying naturalization had been enlarged by this change. If there is no misunderstanding it is entirely all right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not intend
to say that the power technically or legally had been enlarged, but I do insist that by granting the Secretary of State such absolute arbitrary power the situation is materially affected. If he chooses so to do he can without any reference to the people of the community deny to large numbers of people the right to become citizens.


Mr. MILLAR:: I had not intended to take any part in this discussion, but some remarks dropped by the Secretary of State cause me to do so. I think he is under a little misapprehension in regard to the difficulties of the process of securing citizenship. I have the honour to represent a constituency where there are a goodly number of foreigners and I would just like to point out this: Each one does not have to travel fifty or one hundred miles to lay his case before a district court judge. What is usually done is that an application is made by a number of foreigners. They usually live in groups in the country and they make application to the district court judge to hold a sitting in their midst. I am not so closely in touch wdth the working out of this plan that I am prepared to say that in no case has the judge refused, but I know of many cases where the judge has acceded to the request and has held the sitting in their midst. That enables them to reach the judge by travelling a distance of ten, twelve or fifteen miles or perhaps less. Such a procedure is comparatively easy. I was glad to hear the minister state that he did not think it wise to place unnecessary obstacles in the way .of applicants for naturalization. I cannot conceive of the reasoning which seeks to prove that a man is likely to become a better citizen if he is made to drive one hundred miles rather than ten or fifteen miles. I cannot see that an applicant is likely to experience a change of heart in the right direction by having to drive a longer distance. To have to drive a distance of one hundred miles and probably remain a couple of days from home is a handicap that should not be placed in the way of those endeavouring to obtain citizenship. I thoroughly approve of an examination to see that applicants are properly qualified, that they are inspired by high ideals, and that they are anxious to become good citizens.
The remarks of the minister touching 'the present system did not impress themselves strongly upon me. I have heard no objection to the present plan. It seems to me that an inquiry by a competent official comparatively near to the home of the applicant is a proper
Naturalization Acts

thing. The Canadian neighbours of applicants who have known them day in and day out perhaps for five years, perhaps for a longer period, are the proper persons to give information to the judge as to the kind of citizens they are likely to make.
I cannot agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) when he speaks of all these foreigners as coming to Canada with very high ideals of citizenship. From my experience- and I have come into contact with many of them-they have been imbued in their homeland with a fixed hatred of government control and of government institutions. They are ready to oppose anjdhing in the form of government, and it takes some little time for their minds to be disabused of that idea; it takes some little time for them to realize that they are living in a country where they can [DOT] enjoy greater freedom than they did in the countries from which they came. I do not think that a residence of five years in Canada is too long to insist upon. I would be very sorry to see the present arrangement changed because I fear there might be abuses just before election time. I would cast no reflection whatever upon the motives of the minister. I do not for a moment think that he would take advantage of the change that is proposed in the law in order to naturalize a goodly number of foreigners on the eve of an election. Nevertheless, I submit that at a time like this, when people are worked up to a white heat of excitement, there are persons, anxious to roll up as big a vote as possible, who would not hesitate at any means in order to get these foreigners naturalized. That might be done possibly without the minister's knowledge. I think that to require applications to be posted in the office of the clerk of the court for three months is a splendid safeguard and would prevent a great number of foreigners being naturalized just in time to cast their votes. I think we are far more likely to get a good class of citizens naturalized, and far more likely to weed out undesirables, when the naturalization proceedings take place some months before an election.
I have listened carefully to the discussion and I must say that I am in sympathy with the present system with, perhaps, some little modification. Personally I have not been able readily to see the difficulties complained of, -but if there are such I would be willing to agree to some slight modification to bring about an improvement; but the idea of centralizing these proceedings and giving so much power to one man does not meet with my sympathy.


George Black: I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) has about the right idea with regard to the Naturalization Act. I say that as one having had considerable experience under the old Naturalization Act, and under the present Naturalization Act passed in 1914. I was very glad indeed to hear the Secretary of State say that he was open to receive suggestions and to consider them. Such an attitude on the part of a minister leads to that serious consideration which a bill of this character merits, and I feel quite sure that he meant what he said in that respect. In view of the minister's statement I will try to add something to the suggestions already advanced. It is true that in 1914, when the present Naturalization Act was introduced members sitting on the same side of the House as the Secretary of State strongly opposed giving the minister the discretionary powers which he exercises under the act. Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself doubted the wisdom of giving so much discretion to the Secretary of State. In reply to his remarks Mr. Doherty, then Minister of Justice, said:
Of course if our position is that in Canada we can never produce any man to fill any position to whom discretion can be confined, tihen this is too wide a power to give to the Secretary of State, but, if it is a useful thing to this country that there should be a discretionary power, I would have to admit that we could not do it, because we never can get a Secretary of State who can be trusted to exercise his discretion about a matter of this sort.
I think Mr. Doherty was quite correct in his view. As I understand it, what is objected to now is not that the present discretionary power of the Secretary of State should be continued but that. discretionary power vested in the judges should be wiped out. I think that the provision of the act of 1914 requiring the applicant to appear personally before a judge for examination is a very necessary precaution. As was pointed out by the leader of the Opposition it does not follow, that because the judge gives a favourable certificate of recommendation the Secretary of State must of necessity grant the applicant naturalization; he does not have to do anything of the kind. There must, however, be a favourable report from
10 p.m. the judge before the applicant can be naturalized. I think it would be a mistake to wipe out the necessity of an examination before a judge. I may be mistaken, but I venture to say that the desire on the part of the department to make this change at the present time has arisen out of a course pursued by a certain judge in the province of British Columbia who in his wisdom-and very properly I think; I entire!''

Naturalization Acts
commend him for what he did in the matter-in almost every instance refused to give a certificate of recommendation to Japanese applying to be naturalized as British subjects. The judge in question saw through their subterfuges, and notwithstanding the strong pressure which was brought to bear on him absolutely declined to recommend that Japanese be naturalized as British subjects. I do not think that altogether suited the officials of the Department of the Secretary of State. Consequently it may be for that reason they wish to obviate the necessity for the judicial examination. I think in most cases where the judges refuse to recommend naturalization they are acting on reasonable grounds and according to their best judgment.
I do not think that the delay of three months prescribed by the act is undesirable. A person must live in Canada for a considerable number of years before he is eligible to be naturalized. It is better that there should be a delay of three months in these naturalization cases rather Jthan that naturalization proceedings should be rushed through on the eve of an election. They should not want this citizenship merely to vote at a particular election. Citizenship carries with it a great deal more than that. They have been considering the matter and qualifying themselves for some years, so I do not think a period of three months is too long for the procedure.
I was struck with the remark made by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), when he said that he regretted seeing large bunches of naturalization certificates go through. Perhaps he has had the same experience as I have had in seeing large bunches of naturalization certificates go through. I have seen them go through by the hundreds up in the very	territoiy	that	the	Secretary	of State(Mr. Copp) referred to, the Yukon territory. In 1902, on the eve of an election, I have seer them go through by the hundreds, go through so fast that they did not take time to register them. I have seen them go through on the same date as the notices of application, whereas three weeks' notice was required. It was just a case of one, two, three, and out. I say in the	light	of	experience	that thenecessity for centralization of this power to naturalize is great, and that you should not distribute it over the country at large. If that centralization had been required in those days, that abuse could never have been perpetrated. At that time people were naturalized or allegedly naturalized, who, as a matter of fact, never became British subjects, and for years	they did not	find	out that	they hadbeen	duped.	That	was	due to a slipshod
Naturalization Act, taken advantage of by officials who knew better.
The Secretary of State would be well advised to consider the matter carefully before he wipes out the provision requiring that an applicant shall get a favourable recommendation from a county judge before he can have a certificate of naturalization. I for one do not object to having the final discretion vested in the Secretary of State; I think that is the proper official to exercise that discretion and to give final judgment; but great care should be taken in bringing the application up for his final decision. It would be a mistake to do away with the present necessity for a favourable certificate by a judge.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: I do not
wish to reiterate arguments that have been advanced; but I want to state to the minister that I am one of those ordinary members to whom he refers, and whom he could excuse for having suspicions of his bill. The reasons I have suspicions of the power which this bill would confer on the Secretary of State are the same as those enunciated by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). He referred to the year 1902. A little later than that, similar cases came under my observation in a district that I know very well, where natural-[DOT] ization certificates were issued, I am sure, byf the score, and I think I would be safe in using the same expression the hon. member did in his case, that hundreds were issued. I am not stating that the people who so secured their naturalization papers, were not, in the majority of cases, entitled to them. Probably they were; but I know in that rush a goodly number were not entitled to them, and the whole effect of that procedure was to cheapen, to lessen the intrinsic value of the citizenship so acquired.
I am in favour of some action being taken towards the end which, I think, the Secretary of State had in view when he prepared this bill, that is, to place this valuable acquirement of citizenship within the reach of those to whom it is due. It has been pointed out- and I think it should be emphasized-that a goodly number, probably the majority of those who will be applying for citizenship in this country in the next few years, will be those immigrants who have come to our shores, and who in the years prior to their application for citizenship, have been pioneers in our frontier settlements. The conditions which surround them should be taken into consideration, because the majority that this legislation will provide for will be such as those. If the conditions, the regulations, which are to surround our immigration policy are properly carried
Naturalization Acts

out, those who come to our country in the next few years will be placed in what may be termed our frontier settlements; they will be pursuing agriculture. I have in mind at the present time a settlement within my constituency where there are, or were last fall, many people living who are entitled to citizenship so far as I understand the matter; that is, they have performed the necessary residence duties and other requirements. But because this would take at least four days, and that, providing that the court was prepared , to receive and consider their applications immediately on their arrival at the court, and because it would cost them a very considerable sum of money, they were unable to secure their citizenship papers. They had made application to have an officer or the judge himself come to them. I was glad to hear my colleague the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) state that he knew of cases where judges, by coming to settlements like that, had made it possible for such people to secure their citizenship papers. I do not know of any such case, and it was stated to me by a judge of my province that he had no authority to hold sittings outside of those places appointed in the calendar, and that he could not come to those who so requested. The people in the settlement to which I refer were willing to pay all the expenses of the judge or any deputy or officer he would appoint to come to them. That would be a small thing compared with the combined expenses of the whole settlement in going for their naturalization papers. That is only one instance in many, and in a case like that some action is necessary along the line which the. minister, I think, had in mind when he drafted this bill.
But I am afraid in the terms of the bill as he has presented it to us, he did not properly safeguard the giving of citizenship rights. I feel that that should be safeguarded, and there are ways of doing so. The Secretary of State, in making his remarks to-night, rather discredited or discounted the value of posting in post offices notices of application for citizenship. I can fully understand, in the example he gave and similar examples, where that is of little value. In a post office in a city or a large town, that probably would not be a good way of giving publicity to the fact that individuals were applying for citizenship rights. But, perhaps, the minister and many hon. members can understand that in rural post offices these notices do receive attention, for the very reason that I argued just a moment ago that that is where most of these would and should be posted under the cases (Mr. C. W. Stewart.]
that this legislation would be providing for in the . next few years, I want to give a concrete instance of this. Just a few years ago, a short time ago, in a rural post office, notices of application for citizenship were posted by a number of persons whb, under the law which at present exists, were not entitled to apply for citizenship. They were of enemy alien extraction in nationality; but by giving a wrong birthplace on their application to the clerk of the court, they thought to overcome that difficulty and to secure the right of citizenship. Their applications were posted in the rural post office, and because they came from a settlement where many others knew them intimately, having come from the old country with them, this point received attention; notice was given to the clerk of the court, and those persons who so made application did not wrongfully receive their citizenship rights at that time.
In all cases where rural conditions exist, those who know best the qualifications of applicants for citizenship are the people of the district and those who are or have been neighbours of the persons applying. I would suggest then that this provision should not be done away with. Whether it should go to the judge of the court or whether the Secretary of State should have the privileges and judicial rights of the judge in that respect, I am not at all particular.
But I do say that at least sufficient notice should be given in the district or the municipality in which the application is made, so that those who know intimately the history and the immediate past of the persons so applying may have an opportunity, just as is provided in the old act, of filing in the court opposition to the application, stating the ground on which they base that opposition. If that provision had been embodied in the bill I think I would have supported the minister and favoured the bill as he brought it down. But because I feel he has not placed sufficient safeguards around the granting of naturalization I am opposed to the measure. I believe that if this bill were to be made law and to be put into force the conditions would be very similar to those that existed previous to 1914, and I am sure that a number of hon. members in this House know what those conditions were in certain districts at that time, at least in the West.


Mr. STORK:: I want to say a few words in support of the minister and I shall do so for the reason that as I have observed the process of our naturalization law in the province of British Columbia, it has not functioned properly. I do not agree with the


Naturalization Acts
suggestion that has been made that the minister is seeking to have this bill passed in order to use it in any arbitrary or partisan way. I disagree entirely with the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) in which he suggests that the minister is more or less anxious to have the bill passed so that he may be able to facilitate the granting of naturalization to orientals. It is in regard to the naturalization of orientals that I desire to speak briefly. I have found, in my expe-lience in British Columbia, that there has never yet been any objection to any application for naturalization. What is everybody's business is apparently nobody's business. The application forms are posted up at the usual place, but no one takes any notice of them. They go through a certain process and are finally approved of; but I never yet knew of anyone protesting their acceptance. Some time ago in British Columbia in connection with the fishing regulations legislation was passed providing that no fishing licenses should be issued to any man who was not a British subject either by birth or by naturalization. That was believed to be the proper means of preventing orientals from taking part in the fishing industry. But we found almost instantly that orientals were being naturalized wholesale. I am thoroughly in sympathy with the minister's bill, for this reason, that we shall be able to fix the responsibility in this matter. Up to the present time we have never been able to determine just who was responsible for the wholsale granting of naturalization papers to orientals. I was present at a meeting in the city of Prince Rupert at which a man directly interested in the fishing industry made a significant remark. He said, "You expect to prohibit, from fishing, people, who are not British subjects. Let me tell you that all the fishermen on the Skeena river are British subjects; and I will tell you more than that. There were 75 of them naturalized in your own town last summer and no one knew anything about it". The member for Yukon makes the suggestion that the minister is endeavouring to override the expressed opinion of one of the judges in the city of Vancouver. Well, I am supporting the minister in this bill because I want to determine just who is responsible for the issuing of papers, and I shall be able under this legislation to know who is responsible for granting naturalization to people who should not be naturalized. There is one other point. I find that when any man desires to become naturalized the usual method is to appear before a lawyer, at least in British Columbia; and the standard fee in the section of the country from which I come is $25 for the legal work in connection therewith.
I do not regard this bill as an autocratic move on the part of the government or an attempt to secure autocratic powers by the minister. Rather, I consider it to be the embodiment of the principle of responsible government. Someone, has to be responsible for the granting of naturalization papers, and if you are going to have responsible government you must make the proper minister answerable for his actions. If we do that we shall be able to determine just exactly where the fault lies when papers are issued to persons who are not entitled to them.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have to approach this question rather cautiously-


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Samuel William Jacobs: -because it is not so very long ago that I sat with my party in the cold shade of opposition; and I find on referring to Hansard that my argument addressed to the committee at that time was identically the same as the argument made to-day by the present opposition.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: You were wrong.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not know whether I was wrong, but certain changes have taken place in the complexion of the House which incline me to take another view, because when I was then talking against the same question now before the House the Secretary of State was an entirely different person from the Secretary of State to-day. So that conditions are not quite the same. I remember trying to wax eloquent when I pointed out thq danger to which the public might be exposed were we to put into the hands of the Secretary of State this power of granting or withholding certificates of naturalization, involving as it did the franchise, particularly on the eve of a general election. But it was stated at the time, I think by the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who was in charge of the bill on that occasion, that the Secretary of State or some person representing the government would have to be a party to the granting of naturalization certificates, inasmuch as the bill came to us from England. The bill had to be fashioned on the English act, and it was indicated that the administration had to be a party to legislation of this kind, and to the granting of certificates of imperial naturalization. We were therefore limited to the discussion of the entire question. The government said at the time, "Unless you take this you cannot have Imperial naturalization."
I do not know whether it is generally known to this committee that previous to 1914 we had a naturalization law which conferred upon the applicant merely a limited form of na-
Naturalization Acts

turalization, or one that declared that the applicant was to be a British subject within the Dominion of Canada and not elsewhere. By the new act of 1914 and its amendments, Imperial naturalization was granted to applicants and we abolished the restricted or purely Canadian form of naturalization. Consequently we had to conform to the rules insisted upon by the British government. I understand that under the British system it is not necessary that the judicial authorities should in any way be parties to the granting of certificates of naturalization. It is purely a matter of state, for the administration. Involving citizenship and franchise, it was declared to be a matter not within the purview of the judicial authorities but merely one for the Secretary of State or some other member of the administration.
At present we have dual systems working together; we have the judicial and we have the executive. As was very well pointed out to-day, the Secretary of State has some responsibility; if any abuses arise under his department in regard to granting naturalization they can be brought before the House and before the country, they can be made the subject of discussion on the hustings, and consequently the Secretary of State, no matter how favourable he may be to his own party would have to go rather gingerly and refrain from doing anything which the law declared he should not do. The Under Secretary of State, who has charge of these matters reports that the present system is altogether unworkable, that it is cumbersome and useless, and he asks for a change. Now, the Secretary of State himself says he is not particularly wedded to this proposed section.


William F. Carroll: Is it not absolutely necessary in order to carry out the convention between the Imperial government and the colonies-


Ernest Lapointe: The dominions.


William F. Carroll: -and the dominions, yes, that we follow the lead given us in the Imperial legislation which takes away the power of granting naturalization from the judiciary and gives it to the executive?


Samuel William Jacobs: That, I understand, is the rule in England. But we have attempted to be more careful and surrounded naturalization with more safeguards. Consequently we introduced the judiciary into the question. It seems to me that the Department of State can make exactly the same investigations as the judge does under the present system. I know something about how these petitions for naturalization are granted. Application is

made by an attorney on behalf of the person desiring naturalization. Before decision is given by the judge an investigation is conducted-in the city of Montreal it is conducted by the Mounted Police, why I do not know, except that I suppose being a federal police force it is their duty to do that class of work. After the Mounted Police have investigated and reported that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be granted a certificate of naturalization, the judge in turn reports to the Department of State. Now, the Mounted Police might just as well report to the Department of State direct without the intervention of the court at all, and inasmuch as it is stated that the system at present is, as I said before, cumbersome and unworkable I would agree to the change suggested by the Secretary of State. Of course, if any other easier and more workable system can be suggested I am prepared to consider it and perhaps to vote for it. The Secretary of State has said that he is open to suggestions.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: In the hon. member's opinion, whatever procedure is to be followed, whether a judicial, a police or any other sort of investigation, ought it not be set out in the act instead of being a matter of regulation?


Samuel William Jacobs: I fancy the proposed bill is based pretty much upon the English practice


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: *It is an exact copy in section 25.


Samuel William Jacobs: If it works well in England why should it not work equally well here? My hon. friend should be the very last person to oppose any English system, because he insists that nothing good can come out of any place except England.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Who?


Samuel William Jacobs: And perhaps I ought to add New Brunswick.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not take that view. Very many good things come out of Quebec, you know, including my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Samuel William Jacobs: And very many good things go in from Quebec. I would point out to the committee that we must be careful in making changes in this law because we may find ourselves outside the privilege given us by the British government on Imperial naturalization. We have to follow certain well defined rules to secure such naturalization.

Naturalization Acts


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Then at that rate we must have been outside for some years.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, I am referring to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I venture to say that his amendment would not be acceptable to the British government, and if passed it would probably result in the denial to us of Imperial naturalization, which we value bo highly. It will be remembered that in 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier brought this matter up at the Imperial Conference at London. There had been an agitation for Imperial naturalization. It was the subject of discussion on many occasions, but in 1911 we were told that such naturalization would be granted on our conforming to certain rules. Previous to that time three years was the time prescribed by us for naturalization. The Imperial government insisted upon five years' domicile. We conformed to that requirement. We conformed also in the matter of having the certificate issued by the Secretary of State. Now, as I understand it, under the English system we do not require the intervention of courts of justice at all, and inasmuch as there is practically no danger so long as a good Liberal administration is in power that the act will be in any way abused by the Secretary of State, I would be in favour of seeing that the Secretary of State obtained the powers asked for, with the proviso of course of voting to amend the bill as soon as the opposition comes into power.


Edward James McMurray: Mr. Chairman, I am
frank to say that I do not find myself in full accord with the minister with regard to section 4 of his bill. I think the question can be considered from two points of view: first, that of protection of the country; second, that of the applicant for naturalization. As the Naturalization Act stands at present the country has twofold protection: the person desiring naturalization is required to apply personally to a judge, and the minister acting as an appellate court must review the decision of the judge. In that way the country is amply protected.
Now, naturalization is a very valuable right. It has long been settled in civilized countries that the judicial function should be kept entirely separate from the executive. And in dealing with the rights of citizenship the judicial function should exercise a very large and paramount jurisdiction. In this case we have now a court of appeal. We have many judges deciding upon applications for naturalization, ' 157
and in this way we have a general view of the many judicial minds. There is a marked danger of turning this wide judicial operation into a perfunctory act by a mere department of the state. What does the proposed change involve?
It is to be an inquiry by the police forces into the character of the applicant, and a report by them direct to the minister. The minister, sitting in appeal, does not see the applicant and has no opportunity of personally examining the policeman. He does not know the mental calibre of the man who is reporting; he knows nothing, except by letter or affidavit, of the man who is making the application. He proposes to extend that very unsatisfactory condition to first hand ab initio examination of all those who report. We can take the case of the average policeman, untrained in investigation, perhaps more or less prejudiced, reporting adversely in respect to the application of an individual possessed of splendid qualifications for citizenship. Like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) I think the judge who is familiar with the local situation, familiar with the calibre and character of the applicants in that locality, is by all means best qualified to decide in the matter. I do not like to see * a matter of such vital importance to the individual dealt with merely by a department of the state, it is a question that should come within the scope of judicial inquiry, and I think it ought so to remain.


Samuel William Jacobs: Surely an administration that nominates the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada ought to be trusted to grant a certificate of naturalization of an applicant?


Arthur Meighen: But the judges after that cannot vote, while the man after he is naturalized, can.


Samuel William Jacobs: Therefore the man who can vote has more power than a judge who is on the bench.


Arthur Meighen: Not more power, no.


Edward James McMurray: The difference is this: In the one case there is no interest in the matter at all but that of doing what is right. In my opinion it is better, rather than to put it under the control of one person, to have the benefit of a variety of views, those of the judges all over the land. I say that the matter is too vital and of too much importance to become a mere matter of departmental administration. *


Harold Putnam: It is evident from this discussion itself, and it should be reassuring, that the Secretary of State will, if this pro-

Naturalization Acts

posal is adopted, exercise merely the same powers and the same functions he is exercising now. We have the evidence that the work of the judges has been, not universally but in a substantial number of cases, so unsatisfactory that the department has ignored the report of the judges. I am not at all certain, with due respect to what I would call the eminent authority on the other side-and I say "eminent authority" in all sincerity-that the Secretary of State has not power affirmatively to naturalize a man against whom a judge has reported on regular application. I see some reason why he should have that power. I will suppose, if he had that power, that it was to cover what I might call emergent cases or special circumstances. For instance, a judge might in all honesty make a report against an applicant, and it might turn out within a short time that only those appeared against him who were malicious and spiteful and who had fabricated evidence to do him harm. That judge might die; there might be no circuit there for months. Would it not be feasible to get the facts before the Secretary of State, to show that there had been that miscarriage of justice, and let him exercise his own discretion in the matter? One could cite cases indefinitely where it might well be the prerogative of the Secretary of State to step in and grant naturalization to a man against whom the judge had technically shut the door. He might be a man who had been here five years, who was known to be an outstanding friend of Canada, yet the court might not meet in time to grant his naturalization before the occurrence of some event in connection with which he could be of some great national service. For instance, we might want to make him a delegate to some international convention. These are conceivable cases, and they are not to be sneered at merely because the man of my illustration has not up to that time been a naturalized Canadian citizen.
I could multiply illustrations well within the realm of reason to show that it is only just and sensible that the Secretary of State should have that supreme power. The right hon. leader of the Opposition rather thought that the Secretary of State should have come here armed with an opinion from the Justice department one way or the other. I would rather say that the burden was the other way. There is a clause in the act which on its face does seem to give the Secretary of State that power, and I should say that the man who disputes it should himself come here armed with an authoritative deliverance to convince us that the clause does not mean what it seems to say. rM. Putnam.]
Hon. gentlemen opposite practically admit that a substantial proportion of the judges have been doing their work in a slipshod way, and the moment they admit that they admit that the present system falls down. Simply because some judges do their work in a painstaking and a thorough mann/er does not enable us to say that the system is a success; I would say that if three per cent of the judges go wrong the system is a failure, particularly if naturalization is as sacred a thing as hon. members opposite in both groups have insisted this afternoon and this evening. If we give the Secretary of State these powers we give him work to do to which his department greatly to its credit, is already enured. The evidence is that the judges were not doing the work; the depart- [DOT] ment has had the power to grant a certificate when the judge reported adversely to the application-and they have been using an emergent power as a general power, due to the lack of thoroughness and the lack of painstaking care on the part of the judges. My own experience in this matter is limited, but it is sufficient to give you an illustration of how slipshod the method is in my experience. The application is filed and the notice is posted. Nobody reads it. I consider that a former speaker to-night was happy in the expression: "What is everybody's business is nobody's business." The judge perfunctorily says, "I will leave this until the last day of the term." and if no objection is registered it then goes through as a matter of course.
I do not for a moment impugn the integrity of the judge, but I do say he was not properly vigilant, and it is evident that a large proportion of the judges have not exercised the vigilance that they should. And when a considerable number of the judges were slack in their work, the minister very naturally took it for granted that he could not depend upon the reports of any of these judges in so critical a matter as that of naturalization.


William Daum Euler: I do not propose to delay the committee at any length but I would like very briefly to refer at the outset to the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), which has not been discussed. The amendment, as I understand it, calls for the prohibition of the granting of naturalization to any alien whose nationality in the country of origin is not revoked by that country itself. If the hon. member had included in his amendment a provision that such an applicant should be granted naturalization if he were himself willing tq forswear his former allegiance I think I could support it, but I do not think that this House should

Naturalization Acts
accept any suggestion to keep fastened the shackles of a foreign country upon any man who has lived in this land for five years, has proved himself a worthy citizen and desires to obtain naturalization. That is all I have to say on that. I do not think the commit-, tee should have very much difficulty in rejecting the amendment of the hon. member in the way in which it is framed.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Would the hon. gentleman object to my correcting him as to what the amendment is?


William Daum Euler: I would prefer to get the correction from the hon. gentleman who moved it.


William Garland McQuarrie: As I understand it, the amendment does not apply to the case of application for naturalization at all, but applies later on, giving the Secretary of State power to denaturalize a person who has obtained naturalization under certain circumstances.


William Daum Euler: As I understand it, the
amendment calls for the denial of naturalization to men who have naturalization in other countries. Is that correct?


Alan Webster Neill: No, that is not the purpose of the amendment at all. The amendment is to deal with the case where a man has been naturalized in Canada, and as the hon. member says probably put in three years perhaps five or ten years ago and it is found to-day that he is still a subject of Japan obeying its laws, carrying out its customs, and giving adherence to Japan, when all he has to do to purge himself of that obligation is to apply to Japan to obtain a certificate of expatriation. If he cannot get that certificate of expatriation he is still a Japanese subject. He may want to get it; perhaps he is unfortunate, I do not know about that; but if he fails to get it or fails to apply for it he is certainly still a Japanese subject as well as being a Canadian subject, and if the hon. gentleman wants a test of the sincerity and the genuineness of these denaturalized Japanese in seeking to affiliate themselves to Japan he has only to look to the United States where out of 90,000 eligible only 74 applied for the certificate of expatriation from their native country, and only 64 applications were granted. But of 90,000 only 74 or 75 ever sought for it.
As the hon. member for New Westminster has said, this has nothing to do whatever with the merit or demerit of granting or refusing naturalization to a Jap or anybody else. It deals with the case where a man has been pretending to be a subject of Canada and it
is found years and years afterwards that he has been giving the most definite form of adherence to a foreign state.


William Daum Euler: If he is still giving definite adherence to his former state I am quite in sympathy with what the hon. member says. I think the result of the amendment if adopted would be exactly as I have indicated. It would rob a man who has obtained naturalization of his British citizenship. If the man himself cannot obtain release from the country of his former allegiance, even though he may be entirely willing and desirous of being a British subject only, he is deprived of his British citizenship. I object to that.


Alan Webster Neill: I have given an instance of their willingness to debar themselves by citing the United States where out of 90,000 eligible to do so only 74 applied for expatriation.


William Daum Euler: Would the hon. gentleman answer this? If the man in question who has already been naturalized in Canada asks from the country of his former allegiance a release from his former obligation and is refused, and if he is willing to disavow himself of allegiance to his former country, would the hon. member deprive him of Canadian citizenship?


Alan Webster Neill: No.


William Daum Euler: No, I would object to that. I wish to speak for a few moments on a matter that has been the subject of more serious debate, the matter of the mode of procedure for the obtaining of naturalization in this, country. We have the two views. We have the present method whereby the application for naturalization goes to the judge and if approved by him, to the Secretary of State, who again may reject or approve as he sees fit. We have on the other hand, the suggestion made in the present bill that the application instead of going to the judge should go direct to the Secretary of State and be decided there without any intervention by the judge. I am free to say that when the suggestion was first made that the method of procedure should be changed I felt that it was not a step in the right direction. I thought that the judge should perhaps be the best judge as to the qualifications of the applicant for naturalization, he being on the spot, perhaps being personally acquainted with the applicant and having a more intimate knowledge than would be possible to the officials at Ottawa or even to anyone they might send out to make the investigation. But I have discussed the matter fairly well with some of the officials, with those who know, and I am led to believe that it is pretty much a matter of theory which
Naturalization Acts

does not work out in practice, just as some of us believe very strongly in certain theories, say free trade, which we know in actual practice cannot exactly work out in any country.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Order.


William Daum Euler: I do not wish to be misunderstood by my Progressive friends. Perhaps I gave a very unfortunate example, and I do not want them to read into it anything that I did not intend. But the principle is still true. You can carry a theory to the extreme and find that it does not work out ic practice.
I for one am not one of those who would like to place an autocratic power in the hands of any official or of any member of the government and a power which he might abuse at certain times especially during an election. The only fair way and the only reasonable way, it seems to me, for the committee to arrive at a conclusion on the matter is to carefully compare in a practical way the exact results of the application of the two methods. I have outlined the first practice, the practice now in vogue, and the statement is made by those who know that the judges in their investigations of the applications of those who desire to become Canadian citizens are in so many words inefficient in the carrying out of .their duties.
(Now I do not care to make the charge that The judges in general throughout Canada do not properly investigate the qualifications of '*the various applicants for naturalization. I would not like to think they were all derelict in their duty, but I do know this, that there are cases where the judges who ought to know the law do not know the law with regard to naturalization, and when an applicant is rejected because of a lack of knowledge of the law I say that an injustice is done to him which ought not to be continued if we have any way of avoiding it. I know, for example, that a judge granted applications for naturalization although the law distinctly stated that the applicant did not have cer-tan qualifications. He approved of the applications. They were forwarded to Ottawa to the Secretary of State and there they were rejected. All that expense and delay could not have occurred if the application had gone in the first place to the Secretary of State. He at least knows the law and the various amendments that are made from time to time. I have known other judges who have accepted illiterates and who have rejected men on account of their racial origin, which under the law they were not entitled to do.

I take pretty well the opinion of the men who have been in charge of this work; I do not think there is any member here who is well qualified to judge as to the merits of the question. I am not so very much concerned as to the probability that the Secretary of State-as the member of a partisan government if you like-is going to abuse his power. I would not even like to say that I would be very suspicious of the Secretary	of State	of any other government which might have come into power -if it were a government led by the present leader of the Opposition, or a government led by the leader of the Progressive party. I am free to say that I have a little more confidence in the integrity and good faith of the public men of Canada. And even if they were inclined to be derelict in their duty it would mean that they would have to have the collusion of the men who are, if I may say so, the paid servants of the people of Canada-the deputy minister, the under secretary of state, and all the other officials; and any secretary of state who would dare, just prior to an election, to issue wholesale certificates of naturalization to aliens who he thought would vote for the party which he represented would find, I think, it would not be a very paying thing to do. He would find that his government and his party were responsible and I believe it would do him a great deal more harm than good.
We should not shrink very much from placing the power which is proposed to be given in the hands of the Secretary of State, because after all he is the responsible minister of a government, and if the people of this country have placed upon him responsibility and power it is right that he should exercise it, and if he does not live up to his duty punish him when next he appears before the electors. There are certain safeguards provided even now. In the first place when the application goes in it must be supported by the opinions of two reputable men in the community from which the applicant comes. In the second place if it is found that naturalization is granted to a man who is not worthy of it the Secretary of State and the government have the power to revoke that naturalization.
Now, we will say that a general election is upon us because it seems to be the fear of those who are in opposition that when a general election is impending the government in power, will naturalize those whom they believe are favourable to themselves, and perhaps withhold naturalization from those who are opposed ot them. As I say I do not believe there is very much likelihood of their

Naturalization Acts
doing that but they can do it at the present time. We will say there are two candidates. One is Conservative and the other is Liberal, and they come along with perhaps one or two hundred names of men whom they desire to see naturalized. We will say that a Liberal government is in power as is the case just now. The Liberal gets his men naturalized. The Conservative cannot get his men naturalized at all if the Secretary of State-


John Millar: Can they be naturalized
without the three months elapsing? Must not the notices be posted up for three months?


William Daum Euler: Yes, but surely it is pretty
well known longer than three months in advance that a general election is pending, although not always. But this is true: Even throughout the whole term of parliament with a certain government in power the Secretary of State, if he were so inclined, could reject every application for naturalization from persons he thought were politically opposed to him I think it is entirely unlikely that such would be the case.
I am not very strong in my opinion with regard to this matter. I believe that the officials of the department of the Secretary of State are. entirely honest in the attitude they have taken, that their desire is to serve the public interest. I believe that the safeguards which would surround the whole situation in case the bill is adopted are ample and are quite sufficient in the interest of the country. It is for that reason that I feel, while supporting the bill as it stands at present, that if some other suggestion could be made that would satisfy the objections of those who are opposed, I would be very glad. I would like to see useful suggestions advanced rather than mere criticisms. To say that we must adhere to the old method is really not intelligent argument. If there are suggestions calculated to effect improvement I think hon. gentlemen opposite should make them, because the Secretary of State has intimated that he is willing to consider suggestions. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I feel that the committee ought to reject it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of
hon. members that the committee should rise?


George Black: One moment. Before the committee rises I wish to make a statement to correct a possible misunderstanding. I gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) that he, at least, understood me to impute some lack of bona fides to the Secretary of State in this matter and that I inferred, or attempted
to infer, that the Secretary of State desired to assume autocratic power,-unnecessary autocratic power,-and to obtain the opportunity to naturalize orientals. Nothing was further from my thoughts, and I regret it if any member has understood me to draw such an inference. What I did intend to make clear was, that in my opinion the necessity for the judge's favourable report on an application, and that it was a wise provision to retain in the law, not that the Secretary of State-in this instance at any rate-would not give fair consideration to any application that came before him. What I say is, that the Secretary of State should have the advantage of the judge's report as well. As regards the refusal by the British Columbia judge to naturalize Japanese. I merely cited that as a case to show that the judicial investigation is a real one, that the judge exercises discretion and has power, and that unless he gives a favourable report, the Secretary of State cannot grant a certificate of naturalization. This I say is a wise and proper precaution but I do not, and did not, intend in the slightest degree to impute lack of bona fides to the Secretary of State in this instance.
Progress reported.


RADIOTELEGRAPH ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 144, to amend the Radiotelegraph Act.
Arthur Meighen: I think the minister should explain "what the law is and how this bill changes it.


Ernest Lapointe: Explanations were given when the resolution which preceded this bill was considered in committee, but I have no objection to repeat what was then said. Section 10 of the Radiotelegraph Act gives the Governor in Council the right to prescribe a tariff of fees to be paid for licenses and for examination for certificates of proficiency held and issued under the provision of this act. The aim of the bill is to add a certain paragraph for the purpose of authorizing the payment of a portion of that license fee to a provincial government or a private company for services given in connection with the operation of broadcasting stations and for services performed for the minister in connection with the licensing and inspection of stations.
Within the last two years radiotelegraphy has made considerable progress. Last year there were 10,000 licenses in Canada, and this year it is estimated that 50,000 licenses will be issued. Those licenses are mainly, almost ex-
Radiotelegraph Act

elusively, for receiving apparatus. Last year sixty-three licenses were issued for broadcast transmitting stations, but only forty were operated. This year only twenty-five licenses had been renewed. Those stations divide themselves into stations operated by big firms selling receiving apparatus, stations operated by newspapers for their advertisement, and then there are also broadcasting stations operated by provinical governments or private companies. The cost of establishing and maintaining a broadcasting station is rather high. The establishment may cost from $7,000 to $20,000, and the cost of upkeep is from $2,000 to several thousand dollars a year. Therefore, it is rather expensive, and many of the present broadcasting stations are going to discontinue.
This bill is to meet specially the situation in Manitoba, where there were two broadcasting stations, one operated by the Free Press and the other by the Tribune Both have been abandoned on account of the cost. The provincial government operates the telephone system in that province, and it is quite prepared to operate a broadcasting station, but it wants to have something in return. We think it is only fair that the thousands of persons who are getting enjoyment out of their receiving apparatus should pay something to the broadcasting station that supplies the enjoyment, and the idea is to give part of the license fee to the provincial government or to any company that will operate a broadcasting station. The licenses might be collected by the province itself, part of the license to be kept by the province for the cost of operating the broadcasting station and for the cost of collecting the licenses, and the other share to come to the federal government. This is the system in force in England. In England the cost of a receiving license is $2.50, $1.25 of which goes to the government and $1.25 to the broadcasting company. So far the license fee in Canada for receiving stations has been only $1. It is est'mated that about 50,000 licenses will be issued this year, so that would give an amount of $50,000. The cost of a license for a broadcasting station is $50.
When this legislation was in committee on the resolution, the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) wanted to know the expenditure and the revenue last year The revenue received on account of license fees last year up to the 31st March amounted to $16,200. The cost of inspection service, including administration expenses at Ottawa, amounted to $19,250.18, and the cost of issuing licenses was $5,522.80, making a total of

$24,772.98. It must be noted that part of that cost of inspection goes for the inspection of the 160 commercial and eight navigation stations, the 255 Canadian ship stations and all foreign ships visiting Canadian ports carrying Canadian passengers, and this inspection would have to be made in any event. The estimated expenditure for the present year is:
Inspection service	 $24,920
Issue of licenses	 6,100
Total	 $31,020
The estimated revenue from license fees is approximately $50,000. This bill is for the purpose of giving to the Governot in Council power to make arrangements with a provincial government or any responsible government to broadcast and to keep part of the license fees for doing that service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-Governor in 'Council may authorize payment of portion of license foes to provincial government, private company or other party for services rendered.
, Mr. RYCKMAN: Why should the whole cost of issuing licenses run into something like $5,000 or $6,000? What is the special expense in connection with issuing licenses?
Ernest Lapointe: In the large cities, Montreal, Toronto, even Quebec, there are officers specially employed for that purpose. In Montreal, last month, the first month of the present fiscal year, over 3,000 licenses have been issued. A special service is required for that work.


Arthur Meighen: How does the licensing of these machines come under federal jurisdiction?


Mr LAPOINTE:: It has always been under federal jurisdiction.


Arthur Meighen: I do not deny that. I see the bill was passed in 1913.


Ernest Lapointe: It is similar to the telegraph. It is interprovincial; it is national; it is even international. We have conventions with other countries.


Arthur Meighen: It may be based on some treaty, some convention; but really I cannot see any other ground. The bill, however, seems to be all right.


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

Signapore Naval Base

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 151 to extend the period of the Canada Highways Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Friday, May 4, 1923	.