1928-05-07

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, seconded by Mr. Robb, the following bills were read
the first and second times on division:
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Arthur Joel Cox.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Mary Ellen Gussie Edwards.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of William Henry Leonard Gale.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Harriet Louisa Gates.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Duke Mulloy Gordon.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Victor Edward McPherson.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Annie Schreiber.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 287, for the relief of James Retson Watt-Mr. Bell (;St. Antoine.)

[Stage Direction]
Fourth and final report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping.-Mr. Goodison.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Hay), I beg to move that in accordance with the notice given on the 3rd instant, the eighth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce be concurred in.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winninpeg North Centre):: Just before that motion is
adopted, there are a few remarks I should like to make, especially since it was on my motion that the inquiry was made before the banking and commerce committee. I do not desire to move an amendment to that report, which like all reports, is more or less of a compromise, but I should like to point out very briefly some of the facts which came before this committee which are not enibodied in the report..
While undoubtedly the attention of the committee was centered upon the suggestion of a central bank of issue and rediscount at the same time there were other suggestions made, such as the establishment of small local banks, and the possibility of setting up cooperative credit societies. These matters were not gone into by your committee.
Futher than that, there were a- number of general criticisms advanced with regard to the present banking system. The witnesses that came before the committee were, with one exception, either officials of the department or else those connected with the Canadian Bankers Association. Under these circumstances we had not the opportunity of considering as many of these criticisms as personally I should have liked. I am not blaming the committee; the trouble lay in the fact that very few business men cared to come forward to criticize the banks. I do not know whether their objections are well taken but while privately they criticize the banks, they express themselves as afraid to come forward publicly lest their credit should be interfered with. I do not know whether those fears are justified; I merely mention that for what it is worth.
In rebuttal of various criticisms which were made, the bankers made claims which I summarize as follows:
(a)	That the small number of banks in Canada (four banks controlling approximately 70 per cent of the entire deposits) is in the interests of Canada.
(b)	That according to the banks' code of honour, in the granting of credits there is no discrimination against a business concern that is a rival to one in which a bank director is also a director.
(c)	That on the contrary, interlocking directorates are a distinct advantage.
(d)	That districts remote from headquarters are under no disadvantage.
(e)	That it is not the function of a bank to take the hazards of the commencement of a manufacturing business but that any solvent concern in a liquid shape can obtain all the cerdit it can reasonably desire for legitimate purposes.
Mr. A. E. Phipps.puts it this way:
No legitimate loan properly secured has been refused from one end of Canada to the other, since I have been a banker.
The evidence further shows:
(a) That under the Finance Act the government performed, with less machinery and expense, some of the functions of the Federal Reserve bank, but that the banks' use the Finance Act to a very limited degree.
Ob) That the control of the Federal Reserve banks over the money market through the open market transactions might be difficult to exercise in Canada.
(c) That in the opinion of Governor Harding,-
1.	The mutual savings banks in New England have been highly successful.

2722	COMMONS
Banking and Commerce Committee
2.	That in the United States, western cities would organize their own banks.
3.	That the Federal Reserve banks have been helpful in stabilizing the prive level by stabilizing the money market.
4.	That a federal reserve system organized on the same basis as in the United States- that is, a regional system-would be impossible in Canada.
With regard to the control of the price level, as a good many hon. gentlemen know, there are two schools of economists that differ widely. When introducing my resolution some weeks ago I quoted at length from Mr. Reginald McKenna-


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I gather from the observations of my hon. friend that he imagines he is discussing the report of the banking and commerce committee on the inquiry into the banking system.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: That is not the report before the house at all. The motion is to approve the eighth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce, which covers bill No. 38, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was informed by the chairman of the committee that there had been a slight error on the part of the clerk and that "seventh" and "eighth" had been confused, but that it was the report on improving the banking system that was before the house.


Mr. SPEAKER:: At the foot of the motion is a note that the eighth report covers bill No. 38, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (attendance for examination), which the committee recommend be withdrawn in view of the several amendments to the Bankruptcy Act contemplated next session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W, T. GOODISON (West Lambton) moved:
That the fourth and final report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government be concurred in.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker I think notice should be given. In the meantime the report referred to should be printed in order that it may be studied by hon,. members before they are asked to concur in it.


Mr. DUNNING:: Agreed.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands as a notice.
fMr. Woodsworth.]



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 288 to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, is this bill in accordance with the recommendations of the soldiers' committee?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What sums were spent on advertising in newspapers by the Canadian National Railways in 1927 and 1928, and to whom paid?
2.	What sums were spent on free transportation in exchange for (a) newspaper space, (b) eulogy articles on the system and its officials, and to what papers in each case was transportation issued accordingly, (c) to aid in securing new business for the system?	.	.
3 How was an item of $175,162 increase in such advertising in 1927 and 1928 expended, and what papers benefited?
4. What was the number of passes granted each paper, and to whom?


Charles Avery Dunning: This question calls for information of a kind that the management of the Canadian National Railways holds not to be in the public interest to divulge in detail, as publication, while serving no useful purpose, may place the Canadian National Railways in an individious position with respect to competitors whose advertising appropriations are not subject to publication.
Even if it were advisable to bring down the information asked for in detail, it could not be given in the form of an answer to a question as it covers advertising of all kinds *-newspapers, magazines, printing of booklets, etc.-and also not only the entire Canadian field, but such portions of the United States as are served by Canadian National lines in that country.
The item under advertising in Canadian National accounts which the hon. gentleman refers to as having increased by $175,162 during 1927, covers advertising of all kinds throughout Canada and the United States. During 1927, the management expended on advertising in newspapers $303,809.25. In

Questions
addition thereto there was issued transportation in lieu of cash for advertising space in newspapers in Canada only 8197,225.39.


SAINT JOHN VALLEY RAILWAY
Mr. FRASER:: What is being done by the government in the matter of the Saint John Valley railway?


Charles Avery Dunning: The possible acquisition of the Saint John and Quebec railway, and certain other railways throughout Canada, is under consideration by the government and the management of Canadian National Railways.


ASHTON, ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Has there been a change in the postmastership at Ashton, Ontario, during the past year?
2.	If so, who is the present postmaster and when was he appointed?
3.	Who recommended his appointment?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1,	2 and 3. Postmaster A. L. Tubman tendered his resignation in February last. The vacancy was advertised in usual way and a certificate has now been received from the Civil Service Commission covering the appointment of Mr. W. H. Bigford. Arrangements are being made for the transfer to the commission's nominee.


SEIZURES OP WINES AND SPIRITS 1923-1927
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What was the total quantity of wines or/and spirits seized, condemned or confiscated by officers of the Department of Revenue during each of the years 1923-1924-1925-1926-1927, in each of the several provinces of Canada?
2.	What was the proportion of (a) wines, (bl spirits, so seized or confiscated?
3.	What disposal was made of such wines and/or spirits so seized, condemned or confiscated?
4.	What are the quantities of (a) _ wines, (b) spirits so seized, condemned or confiscated, now stored in (a) Halifax, (b) Pictou, (c) Sydney, (d) North Sydney and (e) other points in Nova Scotia?
5.	Have any wines or spirits so seized, condemned or confiscated been sold or transferred to any of the several provincial liquor commissions?
6.	If so, to what commissions, what quantities were sold, at what dates and at what prices in each case?


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Speaker, there is no
disposition on the part of the department to refuse the information asked for by my hon. friend, but to furnish it would necessitate the services of four or five clerks for a period extending over five or six months, the mate-56103-1731
rial being so voluminous. Perhaps he will amend his question, or drop it altogether, for I doubt whether it would be worth while to expend so much time on furnishing the desired information.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I will consult the minister in regard to it.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed in the county of Inverness since the present Postmaster General assumed office?
2.	What are their names?
3.	On whose recommendation did the department dismiss them?
4.	For what reason were dismissals made? UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


GOVERNMENT AID TO RAILWAYS
Mr. CHURCH:: For a return showing: 1. The Federal aid granted to the (a) Toronto and Eastern Railway, (b) the Canadian Northern Railway (on section Toronto to Trenton), and the cost of said systems and the terms on which these two systems became the property of the government, and what has been done with these properties.
2.	The number of miles of these systems now torn up and abandoned or unused, and the loss attending.
3.	The amounts spent on right of way and what sales have been made of these lands.
4.	The amounts received from salvage of the tearing up of these systems. What has been torn up, how was it disposed of, to whom, for what sums, and what tenders were received.
5.	The loss to the country on account of (a) capital, (b) maintenance, by such abandonment.
6.	For a copy of a contract or agreement to sell the Toronto and Eastern to the HydroElectric Power Commission applied for by the late Sir Adam Beck.


YPRES, SASKATCHEWAN, POST OFFICE
Mr. CAMPBELL:: For a copy of all papers, letters, and other correspondence, in connection with an application for the removal of the post office of Ypres, Saskatchewan, from its present location.


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, HUDSON BAY AND FLIN FLON MINING COMPANIES
Mr. SENN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, orders in council, leases, agreements or other documents, relating to the Flin Flon mine, and/or the Hudson Bay Mining Company, between the Department of the Interior and the Hudson Bay Mining Company and the Flin Flon Mining Company and/or their solicitors and agents; and any other department of the government.
Athasbaska Election


VANCOUVER HARBOUR BOARD TERMINAL ELEVATOR NO. 3
Milton Neil Campbell: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, and other correspondence between E. A. Buokerfield, W. deB Farris, J. R. Murray, and the Vancouver harbour commissioners, or the government relative to the purchase or lease of the property adjacent to (or joining) No. 3 Vancouver harbour board terminal elevator (now under lease to the United Grain Growers) and upon which there has recently been erected an elevator and feed mill.


PORT HASTINGS-QUEENSVILLE, NOVA SCOTIA, MAIL SERVICE
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: For a copy of all tenders received by the Post Office Department for conveying His Majesty's mails to and from Port Hastings and Queensville, in the county of Inverness, Nova Scotia. Also a return showing the names of all persons who tendered, the amount of each tender, along with a copy of correspondence, if any. from other parties in reference to said tenders.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FI,IN FLON AND HUDSON BAY MINES
Mark Cecil Senn: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, orders in council, leases, agreements or other documents, relating to the construction of a railway into the Flin Flon mine or the Hudson Bay mine between the Department of Railways and the Flin Flon Mining Company and/or the Hudson Bay Mining Company, and/ or their solicitors and agents; and any other department of the government.
M'r, DUNNING: Perhaps my hon. friend will agree to include, along with the Department of Railways, the Canadian National Railways. If that were done all the information respecting the matter would come down at the same time. This would be more convenient for the house and for everyone concerned. If the words " Canadian National Railways " were inserted after the words " Department of Railways," in the fourth line, it would accomplish the object. The government is very anxious to bring down the papers, and this amendment would enable it to submit them all at the same time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution;
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Pension Act to provide for the amendments reported to the house by the special committee, and for such other amendments as may be necessary in consequence of the amalgamation of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment with the Department of Health.

He said: His Excellency the Governor. General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act be amended in respect to payments in case of disability not due to war, and as to applications where there is no reasonable expectation of life, and to provide that applications for insurance may be received under the act on and after the 1st July, 1928, up to and including the 30th June, 1933.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Arthurs: I wish to direct a question either to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) or to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott):	I have
received several communications from my riding, and I have noticed in the newspapers a great deal of complaint, regarding the levels of lake Nipissing, which are presently controlled by a dam under, I think, the direction of the Minister of Public Works. Great loss will be sustained if the lake continues at its present level. Has either minister received any communication along that line, or will the dam be opened?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: I am not aware of any communications 'but I shall be glad to inquire and give an answer probably to-morrow.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: We seem to have a good deal
of difficulty in connection with the committee on privileges and elections. In Thursday's votes and proceedings there was notice that there would be a meeting of the committee on Tuesday, and in Friday's votes and pro-

Naturalization Act
ceedings it appears that the meeting is to be held on Thursday. There should be some explanation as to why this change has taken place. I do not suggest that my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) knows, but it does occur to me that this unfortunate committee is experiencing great difficulty in getting together. My understanding was that it was to meet on Tuesday in pursuance of notice, and I made my arrangements accordingly.


Mr LAPOINTE:: I do not think my hon. friend is in order in referring to the proceedings of a committee of the house; I think that is distinctly against the rules.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not against the rules to ask a question if there is a misstatement. I hold in my hand a copy of the votes and proceedings of the house, which are part of the public record of the House of Commons, and I am directing the attention of the government, who control the committees-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: They do not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have a majority
in them all, and that is what I meant by the control of the government. That is the kind of control we know in parliament; if there were any other kind of control the hon. gentleman would not be here. In the votes and proceedings it is stated that the committee on privileges and elections is to meet at 11 a.m. in room 424; it was to have met Tuesday and now it is fixed' for Thursday. I suppose the officers of the house would be responsible for the change.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: No doubt it is my fault, Mr. Speaker, but I did not quite understand the question asked by the leader of the opposition. If I might be permitted to do so, I will read his question and give an answer at five o'clock this afternoon or at eight o'clock to-night.



NATURALIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: I direct the attention of the
Secretary of State to the fact that Chief Justice Meredith has made a public protest because he cannot get from the minister information which he requires, and I ask if this information will be given in future.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I have read the report sent out by
the Canadian Press having to do>
with a judgment rendered by Chief Justice Meredith at Osgoode Hall, Toronto. In the first paragraph of the report it is stated that the chief justice intimated that he had applied to the Secretary of State for assistance in arriving at a decision with respect to these aliens who were applying for naturalization, and that the minister had not responded to his request. I believe that is what my hon. friend has; in mind.
I can only say that I am afraid the Canadian Press has been misinformed on the matter; I do not believe that Chief Justice Meredith would have taken such a stand, for the simple reason that he did not write to the Secretary of State in connection with this matter, and so could not have received any reply from myself. What happened was this: On April 9 Chief Justice Meredith wrote a letter to the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Mulvey, which I will now read:
My dear Mr. Mulvey:
The same question in regard to naturalization in Canada of aliens, about which I had some correspondence with you a while ago, has arisen again, in the same place and in regard to the same class of persons.
The still unsatisfactory state of the law and the practice under the act has impelled me to put in writing some thoughts on the subject in the hope that they may lead to something being done to put the matter on a better footing.
Will you be good enough to give to me any assistance you can; and to read that which I have -written and let we know your views of all that I have said?
The enclosed paper is merely a draft. I have done nothing yet.
On April 17 of this year the Under-Secretary of State replied as follows:
My dear Judge Meredith:
Your letter of the 9th arrived during my absence from Ottawa. I am very glad indeed to have your opinion upon the subjects therein touched upon in respect of the naturalization of aliens. This will be of great assistance to the Secretary of State in promoting a bill which is at present before parliament for the purpose of amending the Naturalization Act, eliminating the clauses winch require applicants for naturalization to be heard by a judge. I agree with your view throughout. In fact, I have for years been trying to prevail upon the Secretary of State to put forw'ard the bill which is now under consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The memorandum attached to the letter has not been read.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I thank my hon. friend
for the interjection, because this is also very helpful. On May 1 Mr. Justice Meredith wrote to Mr. McOlenahan, local registrar at Milton, Ontario, in which letter he informed Mr. McCIenahan that he was sending papers in reference to cases which were before the court, and in that letter he stated:

Disposal of Canteen Funds
You are no doubt aware of the fact that there has been a good deal of discussion over naturalization proceedings ever since the assizes at Milton two or three years ago when several eases had to be dealt with by me.
It has now reached the stage when I think it proper to deal with the cases that came before ihe at your last Autumn assizes;^ and I have accordingly filled in my decision in the papers in each case and am now sending to you by Canadian Pacific express all of the papers so that there need be no more delay in sending them to the Secretary of State.
With this letter I am sending to you a copy of my reasons for the decisions; be sure that it accompanies the papers always; unless some one chooses to have copies made and a copy sent with each set of papers. I thought one for the lot should do.
Hoping that all things are going on very well in Milton;
On May 4 Mr. McClenahan wrote to the Secretary of State as follows:
Dear Sir:
Enclosed find all papers re applications for naturalization herein which I received this morning. I am enclosing a letter containing his reasons.
This is not the proper time for any comment, I know, but I do say again that surely this report must be the result of the Canadian Press having been misinformed. Mr. Justice Meredith could not say he had written the Secretary of State without receiving a reply, because in the first place he did not write the Secretary of State; he wrote the Under-Secretary of State from whom he received a prompt reply. The copy of his memorandum which was sent to the Undersecretary of State previously was forwarded to me by the local registrar at Milton, two or three days after I made my speech in the House of Commons.


Peter McGibbon: He did not say he asked for assistance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: No debate can take place now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But only a portion of
the letter has been read. Surely the minister will realize that the memorandum accompanying the letter is a part of the letter and should be read.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There is no objection to reading it, but it is the very memorandum which was placed on Hansard when I made my speech.



BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: I would like to ask the Minister
of Justice if it is true that on April 30 last

a Chinese convict escaped from the British Columbia penitentiary situated at New Westminister while employed in the private residence of the acting warden, Inspector Jackson, and if it is not contrary to .the regulations to so employ a convict?


Ernest Lapointe: I will secure the information.



DISPOSAL OF CANTEEN FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 39, respecting the disposal of certain canteen funds.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. RALSTON:: The bill has been
reprinted and hon. members will find it on their files as reported by the special committee on pensions and soldier problems. That committee made some amendments, all of which have been incorporated in the bill. There are two suggestions in amendment that I have to make to the committee. One amendment is in section 4, and the other in section 7. Hon. members will recall that the purpose of the bill was to provide for the distribution of certain canteen funds accumulated by battalions, and other units, with a constantly changing personnel, and which were in* Canada during the war. The bill now before us provides for the distribution on exactly the same basis as that of the fund under the Canteen Funds Act of 1925.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Administration by provincial board of trustees.
James Layton Ralston: Section 4 is one that I
have just been discussing with the chairman of the special committee. Section 4, subsection (b), clause 2 provides:
That any use of the provincial allotment for relief purposes should be limited to the class of case for which no relief is then available from governmental sources, or from the allotment made under the Canteen Funds Act.
As I have pointed out, the effect of that section would be that no one would get the benefit of this Canteen Funds Act who was in a position to take any benefit from the existing Canteen Funds Act. In consultation with the chairman of the committee, I understand from him that that was not the inten-

Naturalization Act
tion of the committee, and that this was inadvertent. I think he has consulted with some other members, who concur, and in view of that I am moving:
That section 4, subsection (b), clause 2, be amended by striking out the words "or from the allotment made under the Canteen Funds Act" in the forth and fifth lines of such clause.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I would like to
ask the minister if all of that subsection should not go out.


James Layton Ralston: That was the principle
that was adopted under the other Canteen Funds Act. In other words, this was to be considered a special emergency fund, and if relief was available from governmental sources the Canteen Funds Act should be kept intact. That was the principle that was adopted under the other act, and I presume that is why it was incorporated in this.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to. ,
press. I thought that at this stage I might make another statement, not to place any new matter before the committee, but rather to co-ordinate the information that I have given at different stages during the discussion of the bill. I wish to move further amen-ments to the bill in order to make statutory some of the provisions that the department had intended to deal with in the shape of regulations. In the first place, I would like the committee not to lose sight of the principle involved in this legislation. During the course of the discussion we have touched so many points, and so many sides of this very involved and intricate question, that I am afraid we may lose sight for the moment of the principle underlying this proposed amendment to the act. The principle of the amendment is to bring our act into conformity with the practice throughout the British Empire and to vest the discretion in the Secretary of State in the matter of granting naturalization certificates.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Reports to minister.
James Layton Ralston: I am going to ask the
committee to agree to an amendment whereby this fund shall be administered by, and reports made to, my colleague, the Minister of Pensions and National Health, rather than the Minister of National Defence. I am therefore moving:
That the words "National Defence" in line 2 of section 7 be struck out, and that there be substituted therefor the words "Pensions and National Health."


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask the minister
what the balance to the credit of that fund amounts to?


James Layton Ralston: This fund that is being
dealt with amounted to $124,000 last September.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from May 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, to amend the Naturalization Act.-Mr. Rinfret.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This bill has been before
the committee on several occasions and has caused considerable discussion. It has also received the attention of the public and the


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has always been


Charles Avery Dunning: Not under the present,
law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend's interruption shows that I was right in saying that I should again direct the attention of the committee to the main principle of the act, which principle the leader of the opposition has lost sight of. Under the present system the Secretary of State, representing the government of Canada, can pass on naturalization papers only where the judiciary have pronounced favourably on the application, and the purpose of the bill is to bring the applicants directly before the Secretary of State and to vest in him full discretion under certain regulations to grant naturalization certificates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure my hon. friend does not desire to make any misstatement of facts.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 4 of the act, which is the principal section determining the conditions under which naturalization shall be granted, contains subsection 3, which is the present law, but which the Minister of Railways was so persistent a moment ago in saying that it was not so. Subsection 3 reads:
Naturalization Act

The grant of a certificate of naturalization to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the minister and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision.
That section is a standard section throughout the empire. It was drafted by British draftsmen; it is the law of Canada to-day and it will continue to be unless my hon. friend takes it out of the statute. This subsection is not touched by this amendment.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will
refer to my first statement in the house, he will see that I have been contending right along that this section was the underlying principle of our act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of all acts.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was basing my appeal
to the house on that subsection. I am glad to see my hon. friend admits at last that the subsection is the underlying principle of our act, because that is what I have been contending all the time. What I have endeavoured to demonstrate to the committee and the country is that the sections that we desire to repeal are inconsistent with that very subsection which I have read and which my hon. friend has just read. If my hon. friend will refer to my speech of last Monday, he will find that my first argument was that the principle of the legislation was included in the subsection which he has just read and that sections 22 to 27 inclusive which we wish to repeal are inconsistent with that subsection. In the other British dominions the Secretary of State has, in conformity with what has just been read, and under certain regulations, absolute discretion in regard to granting certificates. When the applications come to him he has absolute discretion to dispose of them one way or the other, provided that the regulations have been followed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So he has in Canada.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In this country, becaus'e of the existence of the sections which we now propose to repeal, the Secretary of State can exercise that discretion only when the courts have reported favourably.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. It does not say so. It says the opposite.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then there will be no reason for objecting to my bill.


Mr. MANION:: The objection to the bill was largely because the minister was taking away the discretion altogether from the courts and vesting it in the Secretary of State.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The leader of the opposition seems to contend that this is the law now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So it is and has been ever since the statute has been on the statute books.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I would feel like putting a question to my hon. friend now. Does he claim that under the present law the Secretary of State has absolute discretion in the granting of naturalization?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then why obj ect to this bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because it abolishes the safeguard of a judicial inquiry.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Does my hon. friend contend that after a judicial inquiry has taken place the Secretary of State can grant a naturalization certificate even after a judge has pronounced unfavourably?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a political matter. No Secretary of State would dare go in opposition to such a pronouncement.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am glad to see I have made gome headway with my hon. friend. He says that it is a political matter. According to the statute, no matter what the judge says, the Secretary of State can grant a certificate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then why does my hon. friend object to this bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the reference to the judiciary is the only check on political action.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: After further study of the question my hon. friend has come to the conclusion somewhat more decidedly than, a week ago that throughout the empire the discretion rests with the Secretary of State and he will not now dare stand up in the house and say that in this Dominion only we should not grant the same discretion to the Secretary of State. I see that although we have laboured very hard, we have made some headway even with my hon. friend. If we are agreed on this point that not only should the discretion rest with the Secretary of State, but that it does already rest with him, there Should be no more difficulty in putting this bill through, because by doing away with the judicial inquiry, we Shall be doing away with something which even in the opinion of

Naturalization Act
my hon. friend has become rather useless. After gving some study to the problem during the last week my hon. friend has apparently come to that conclusion.


Mr. CLARK:: If this bill passes, will my hon. friend have power and discretion to grant naturalization certificates to orientals?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is a side issue altogether.


John Arthur Clark: It makes a great difference to the attitude I take in regard to the bill.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will come to that, but that is a side issue altogether.


John Arthur Clark: I do not wish to interrupt the minister but I am asking a question that vitally concerns us in British Columbia.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We are now discussing how certificates can be granted to aliens generally. The point whether we should grant certificates to orientals, is only a side issue.


Mr. STEVENS:: It is a very vital side issue.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If it has any bearing on the subject, it would be better not to leave it to a judge in British Columbia who might decide in one way or a judge in Alberta who might decide in another; it would be much more satisfactory to leave it to the government which is responsible not for local opinion in some small tribunal, but for the general policy of the country on the matter.


John Arthur Clark: We prefer the judiciary of the country to the government in regard to the question.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend has not the right to exercise any such preference. The government of the country is supposed to determine the policy of the country.


John Arthur Clark: I am only stating my preference.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In line with my proposed amendment I have in my hands the report of the conference of 1911 on the subject of imperial naturalization and I find that Mr. Churchill concluded his remarks in regard to the question as follows:
This conference approves the scheme of imperial citizenship based on the following five propositions:
These are the five propositions that he gave:
1.	Imperial nationality should be world-wide and uniform, each dominion being left free to grant local nationality on such terms as its legislature thinks fit.
2.	The mother country finds it necessary to maintain five years as a qualifying period. This is a safeguard to the dominions as well
as to us, but five years anywhere in the empire should be as good as five years in the United Kingdom.
3.	The grant of nationality is in every case discretionary and this discretion should be exercised by those responsible in the area in which the applicant has spent the last twelve months.
4.	The imperial act should be so framed as to enable each self-governing dominion to adopt it.
5.	Nothing now proposed (this again is not necessary but only to make clear where we stand-it is only an "aide memoire") would affect the validity and effectiveness of local law regulating immigration and the like or differentiating between the classes of British subjects.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, though I did not expect the support of the leader of the opposition in making my point, there is not the least doubt that in every dominion of the British Empire, as in Great Britain, the underlying principle of naturalization and the granting of certificates is that responsibility should rest with the government of the country-with the Secretary of State.


James Arthurs: May I ask the hon. minister a question? Section 27 of the act which he is about to repeal gives the minister absolute discretion as regards the decision of the judges or otherwise. I would like to ask him in how many cases during the time he has been in office he has differed from the opinion of the judges; in other words, how many applications has he refused which the court has decided should be granted; also, in how many cases has he granted naturalization in spite of the opinion of the court to the contrary?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: While I appreciate interruptions, I am afraid that sometimes they have a tendency to spoil the continuity of the argument. When I come to deal with the work of the Secretary of State I shall be able to give my hon, friend a good idea of the condition of affairs in respect to the question he has put to me. But the first point that I wanted to make, and I see that we are agreed on that, is that in the British Empire the principle of naturalization and the granting of certificates rests with the government of the different dominions, and the fullest discretion should be given to every government in the granting of the certificates.


James Arthurs: The hon. Secretary of [DOT] State may be absolutely right in his contention, but let me point out that his decision is subject to the legislation of the different dominions; the Secretary of State acts subsequent to the legislation.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Of course. Otherwise we would not be dealing with this question at all.
Naturalization Act


James Arthurs: I am asking regarding the legislation as it now stands, and the minister has not yet answered my question.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am just going to answer it, but I would point out that we discussed this legislation for three days last week, and while I desire most earnestly to be frank and courteous in my explanation to show that this is a good bill and should be entertained by the house, I have been subject to questions put in a haphazard way such as the one to which I have just replied. I have tried five or six times to explain the legislation and to cover the points raised by the leader of the opposition, and yet my hon. friend the leader of the opposition would still say that I had not replied to his questions.
I am now making a new statement which I wish to present in an orderly and consecutive way, in order to place before this committee the full views of the government on the matter; and that is the reason why I would ask my hon. friends to bear with me and let me present the whole of the case before introducing questions which, like the questions in regard to the oriental case and the number of refusals, refer only to incidental matters and not to the principle of the bill.
I have shown, and this was my first purpose, what was the underlying principle of the naturalization acts not only in this Dominion, but in every other dominion. Our contention has been that iby retaining in our statutes the clauses which we propose to repeal, notably the clause dealing with the reference to the courts, we were acting in contradiction of the principle of the act, and I was glad to hear my hon. friend stand up and admit that that was the case.
My hon. friend has said: We want to know how you are going to proceed if you do away with those clauses. I have tried to explain that before, but I will try to explain it again as fully as I can, and perhaps this will be the proper time to make the explanation.


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: May I ask a question? In the constituency which I represent a county court judge deals with these applications. Last year he dealt with seventy applications. We have no mounted police and no homestead inspectors down there to take the place of the judge, and I should like to know just what officials will have charge of that work in place of the judge.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like
to say just a word before the minister proceeds. We on this side of the house have been following the discussion which has taken

place on the other side. From the moment the minister sought to explain the principles underlying the legislation which he has brought down, he has been continuously interrupted by hon. gentlemen opposite, interrupted in a manner which has made it perfectly clear that the opposition are unwilling to have him make a clear statement to the country of the position which he is taking on this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is untrue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has done its utmost-


James Arthurs: I rise to a point of
order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the
floor.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. gentleman has risen to a point of order.


James Arthurs: I asked a certain question of the minister and I do not think that I should be characterized as raising objections of no moment, as the Prime Minister stated. My questions were absolutely sincere and were put for the purpose of elucidating the actual meaning of this bill. I do not think, therefore that I should be characterized as one trying to block this legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are times and seasons for all things. The point I am making is that the minister is endeavouring to make not only to the house but to the country a clear statement of what he is seeking to have enacted iby this legislation.


Robert James Manion: He has been trying to do it for a week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite right, and hon. gentlemen opposite would not permit him. That is the very point I am making.


Robert James Manion: He has been changing his
mind every day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I wish
the house to understand, and the country to understand, is that the minister desires to have the privilege of making a clear statement as to this legislation and the reasons for it. When that statement is made, if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to ask questions as to the details, they will have the fullest opportunity to do so, but the minister must be allowed, as every minister of the crown is entitled to be, to make his own statement, in a fair way and without interruptions.

Naturalization Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: We resent very greatly
the observations made by the right hon. Prime Minister. They are unfounded in fact. That is number one.
This bill was moved for the second reading by the Secretary of State on the 30th day of April last, and he filled one, two, three, four columns of Hansard without a word of interjection. Then Mr. Manion on the fifth column asked:
What was the system in Canada before 1914?
The minister continued. Then Mr. Campbell asked:
Is any time limit prescribed in this measure?
I notice that all the provisions are repealed. Is there any provision for posting applications in the office of the clerk of the court or anywhere else?
Was that an interjection to prevent knowledge being given to the house? The minister proceeded to answer it courteously, and without any assistance from the leader of this house. Then Mr. Kaiser asked a question:
In what way would we differ from Australia? I can see the great difference between naturalization in England and in Canada.
The minister answered that. Then Mr. Ladner asked a question with respect to a very important matter:
Is it not true that the authority still remains with the Secretary of State?
The minister answered that. Then Mr. Ladner asked:
Does the hon. member think the Secretary of State, who has not seen nor heard the applicant, should have power to grant the certificate?
The minister answered that, and then spoke for another column and a half without an interjection. Then Mr. Kaiser asked a question as to what steps the Secretary of State would take in order to satisfy himself that the applicant wias a fit subject for naturalization. The minister answered that, and then spoke for another column without interjection, another column, another column, another column, another column, and another column, without interjection, until on page 2538 Mr. Manion asked a question of four lines, which the minister answered. Mr. Manion then asked another question in one line, and then the minister replied. iSir George Perley then spoke for one column; then the Secretary of State interrupted him; then he interrupted him again; then he interrupted him again; thetn the minister interrupted Sir George Perley again; then the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) interrupted Sir Ge'orge Perley-as usual; then the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) interrupted Sir George Perley; then the Minister of Railways interrupted Sir George Perley again; then Sir George Perley proceeded; again the Secretary of State interrupted Sir George Perley; then the Secretary of State interrupted again; then Sir George Perley got a chance to fi'll a column of Hansard without further interruptions. We were not in committee, we were on the second reading. Then I commenced my observations and progress was reported.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many columns?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One column. Then the matter came before the house and I put on Hansard the state of the law in all of the dominions. To-day the minister brings in an absolutely new bill, and the Prime Minister has the hardihood to tell the house that the opposition was interfering with the presentation of the facts in regard to this measure. There are certain amenities' in public life, but when the Prime Minister tells the opposition that it has taken such a course he is saying what is absolutely untrue as shown by the records of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to say to my hon. friend .that I do not need to take any lessons from him on the amenities of public life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After what he said the other evening he needs to learn something in this regard.


Ernest Lapointe: Don't get excited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to be charged with a statement like that.


Ernest Lapointe: Keep cool.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You need not worry about that.


Ernest Lapointe: It is necessary in a
leader.


John Frederick Johnston: There is a well-known rule that might with profit be read at this time. It will be found in paragraph 312 at page 103 of Reauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
Whilst a member is addressing the house no one has a right to interrupt him by putting a question to him, or by making or demanding an explanation. A member will at times allow such interruptions through a sense of courtesy to another,-
And so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not apply to committee.
Naturalization Act


Ernest Lapointe: It applies all the time, and is worth while discussing. The leader of the opposition says that the rules of the house do not apply to committee. In committee, as well as when the house is in full session, a member cannot be interrupted without his consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the house sitting in committee of the whole is to elucidate information.


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For that purpose every member has a right to insist on the minister explaining what he is discussing. That was the purpose of the inquiries we made. To that extent the rules are different in their application from when the house is in session, because then no member may be interrupted without his permission; but during the progress of debate in committee the whole purpose is to secure information.


Ernest Lapointe: That is why a member may speak many times in committee, but while he is speaking no one may interrupt him without his consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: That is all I was saying.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We agree as to that.


John Frederick Johnston: Standing order 58, section one, is pertinent in this connection:
(1) The standing orders of the house shall be observed in the committees of the whole house so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking.
I itake it that the rules are the same in committee as in the whole house.


James Arthurs: As one of those who
came under the condemnation of the Prime Minister, may I say th-at I very courteously asked the minister to allow a question, which he did. I think the same applies to my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). The minister very freely granted permission, but did not answer our questions.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I quite agree that it is usual in committee for questions to 'be interjected, and I may say that any hon. member is quite free to put questions to me. But this is a very special case, and speaking in all sincerity and without the least bitterness, I think the leader of the opposition will agree that his complaint right along has been that the minister has not furnished the committee with certain information. That was the reason why he insisted that the discussion should
[Mr- Bennett.]
proceed on Wednesday, saying, "I want a reply to my question." I was endeavouring to reply to his question and although I was not quite sure that I could convince him, I did think I could convince the people outside who are trying to follow this bill. In the first part of my remarks I attempted to explain the principle underlying the bill. During the course of my explanation some hon. members put questions dealing with local incidents, but having nothing whatever to do with that principle. If I may be allowed to proceed with my remarks without interruption, I shall of course be delighted afterwards to put myself at the disposal of any hon. members who have questions to ask.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not think anything
can be fairer than that. I tried to show the principle underlying naturalization in every British dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, Mr. Chairman,
since we have been interrupted, I am going to direct attention to the fact that this whole discussion is out of order. If you will look at your memorandum you will see that the bill was marked "carried" as to sections one and two-the whole bill. A new bill is now being introduced, and the proper method of dealing with it is not the method that is now being pursued. You said "carried" the other day, Mr. Chairman, as to clauses one and two.


John Frederick Johnston: No, the amendment.
The clause as amended was not carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two is the new amendment.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If, as the leader of the
opposition says, the bill now before the committee is carried, I have no objection to its being reported for third reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us be accurate about this. An amendment was brought in by the minister, which was accepted, but which you have not yet declared as finally carried.


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment was
declared carried, but the clause as amended was not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is it.


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment as
presented by the minister is to section one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Being subsection 2 of
the bill.

Naturalization Act


John Frederick Johnston: There is a subsection
in the original copy that was not touched at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was carried the
other day was the amendment proposed by the minister, being the new subsection two of section one. The section as amended was not carried. That is the position at the moment. The minister is now introducing an entirely new bill.


Mr. CANNON:: What is the point?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill proposed to
the house and given second reading is not the bill now being considered.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the same principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the principle is entirely different. The Speaker is out of the chair. Discussion on the principle of a bill takes place on the second reading. Amendments are supposed to be dealt with in another manner altogether. We should deal with them substantially as a new measure.


Lucien Cannon: Oh no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rule is reasonably
clear as to that. These amendments are not cognate to the bill and the questions put to the minister. This measure having been presented to the house as it was, the minister is now introducing an entirely new measure, which it is not competent for him to deal with in this way at all.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, I submit
that this is not a new measure. The bill as originally introduced was to repeal certain sections, and I intimated that the procedure would be replaced by regulations of the department. During the course of the discussion it was pointed out that it would be more in accordance with British practice if those regulations were made statutory, and to this I have no objection. But the principle of the bill remains the same; it does away with application to the courts. That is the bill which is now before the committee. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that if the bill as formerly presented had been adopted-which I do not believe-I have no objection at all to your reporting it as it stood last Wednesday.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is before the committee at the moment?


John Frederick Johnston: Subsection 1, as
amended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are no new amendments?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have not moved any new amendments yet, but I have sent an advance copy to my hon. friend for his information. I intend to make the motion as scon as we come to it. Let me assure hon. gentlemen that so far as I am concerned this procedure is altogether enjoyable; I do not find fault with it. But we are getting nowhere ; we are saying, ''I am coming to that, I am coming to that", and reaching no conclusion. We do wish to achieve some result.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are waiting patiently.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Now I wish to say a word regarding a practice followed in the department at the present time; and as a typical case, in order to meet the wishes of my hon. friend (Mr. Boys), I have chosen the county of Simcoe. The hon. member wished me to cite a particular instance to show what has taken place there. I have before me the case of an immigrant who applied for naturalization in April, 1927, a man named James Francis Mould. He signed the application for naturalization in the prescribed form, and the department at once referred the case to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, just a few days after it had been received. It was also referred to the Department of Immigration. The case was considered by the courts, and while it was being heard there it was investigated by the Department of Immigration as well as by the mounted police. When the report came back from the court we also received reports both from the Department of Immigration, as to the residence of the applicant, and from the mounted police as to his character. The two sets of reports agreeing, that from the court and the reports made after our own inquiry, the Secretarj' of State was in a position to grant the certificate. But, says my hon. friend, when you discontinue referring these cases to the courts, what is going to take place? How is the Secretary of State to satisfy himself regarding the qualifications of the applicant? In the first place I should like to correct a wrong impression, which has been given the house by some hon. members. The statement has been made that in 1927 we had to deal with 16,917 cases of naturalization. If you will consult the report of the naturalization branch of my department, you will find at page 331, in the column next to that indicating the number quoted, that the number of certificates issued was only 9,072, that is to say, about half the number of grants made. I will explain this. In many cases we grant a certificate which includes husband, wife and children; and we also grant a certain number
Naturalization Act

of certificates-the number for that year being 797-which are merely renewals of certificates that had. been granted under the old act previous to 1914. I make this statement in order to correct the misapprehension that in 1927 16,917 certificates were granted. The point may not be very material, but it is worth while emphasizing it just the same, that quite a number of certificates apply to both wife and children. So that the granting of certificates in this country is not so extensive as hon. members opposite have tried to suggest.
But the question is asked, how is the Secretary of State going to deal with such a large number of applications? Is he going to do it himself or have some officer in the department do it for him? Well, I fancy our friends opposite will agree that in this regard the Secretary of State is in the same position as are other ministers of the crown. Do hon. gentlemen suppose that the Minister of Public Works supervises in person every public work in the country, or that the Minister of National Revenue is present at every port of entry to find out personally whether the customs regulations are properly observed, or that the Minister of Immigration interviews every immigrant coming into the country and, in person, makes sure that the regulations are lived up to? Every minister in this government or in any other government that has existed in the country is in the same situation. The minister lays down his policy and is responsible for the administration of the act, but he does not deni personally with every case appertaining to his department. Of course, he has a staff; he has an organized body of officers to do this work. In my opinion, the whole machinery of responsible government rests upon the fact that the government of which the minister is a member defines the policy, he is responsible for the administration of his department, and parliament exercises control over the manner in which any act has been administered as well as over the policy that has been defined by the government. That is the complete machinery which is at the command of every responsible government. I do not see why suddenly these fears should manifest themselves, that in the case of naturalization, unless the Secretary of State deals personally with every case that is brought to his notice, the act cannot be carried out at all. I say, what the Secretary of State is responsible for is the policy of his department and the proper administration of that policy by his officers. There is nothing extraordinary in this; it is 
the condition that exists in every department of the public service.
My hon. friends have pointed out that in the other dominions the regulations, such as we enforce in the Department of the Secretary of State, are made statutory. I had indicated when introducing the bill the way in which the department intended to proceed with these cases if we did away with the reference to the courts. I may observe, however, that I am broadminded enough to accept a suggestion when I think it is good, and I admit that there is some force in the argument for making the regulations statutory instead of leaving them to be drawn up by whoever happens to be in charge of the department. There is something in that argument, and I contend that, we are giving a proof of our willingness to accept sound suggestions, a proof that we have no improper motive in putting through the bill, when we say that we are perfectly ready to accept the proposal and to make some of the essential regulations statutory. My hon. friend has been good enough-and I want to thank him for it-to point out the statutory regulations in force in the different dominions of the empire. He quoted from the Newfoundland statute, from the New Zealand statute and from the statutes of South Africa and of Australia. If hon. members have read the speech carefully, or if they heard it- and I may say that I paid the greatest attention to it myself-they wall find that all these regulations embodied in statutes in the different dominions touch certain points and provide certain safeguards. They have to do with the proper notice of the application which must be given; they deal with the delay which must ensue after the application is filed before the certificate is granted, and they also touch the question of the testimony which may be forwarded with the application in order to make it easier for the department to appreciate the qualifications of the applicant. I have gone through these statutes and have convinced myself that in the different dominions all the regulations which art statutory cover the points which I have just indicated. That is the reason why, in my desire to make our act as strongly British as possible, to follow the practice which exists throughout the British Empire as closely as we can while providing at the same time what we believe should lie within the discretion of the government in a matter of this kind in order to give the country the greatest safeguards possible in the granting of certificates, I have decided to propose further amendments to the com-

Naturalization Act
mittee which will make statutory those regulations which it had been our intention at first to leave to the department as they are left at present. That is the reason why on Tuesday last I moved the first amendment which is now before the committee having to do with the posting of the application in a post office and requiring a delay of sixty days before a certificate can be granted; that is my reason for moving further amendments to add two sections to the bill, one of which will require a notice to be given by the applicant in a newspaper and the other specifying the certificates which must accompany such an application.
In the first place, an applicant will be required to advertise his intention to seek naturalization, in a newspaper published at or nearest to his place of residence, in either the English or the French language, a copy of which advertisement must be furnished to the minister. In the second place we are asking the applicant to have his petition accompanied by certificates as to his character and his adequate knowledge of French or English from three natural born British subjects, two of whom must be householders and one a justice of the peace. The publication of these applications in newspapers is a provision which obtains in both South Africa and Australia, but in Canada we have the additional safeguard that a notice will be posted in the post office nearest the residence of the applicant. Therefore on this point we have two safeguards or guarantees as against the one which prevails in other portions of the empire. With regard to the certificates which must accompany such applications, we have gone further than the Australian statute, which provides that a certificate shall be produced from three natural born British subjects. two of whom must be householders and one a justice of the peace, a postmaster, a teacher in a state school or an officer of the police. After hearing our friends opposite claim that if a postmaster were a partisan appointed by this government he could not be entrusted even with the important function of posting an applicant in his post office, we decided that we should not include a certificate from a postmaster among those which could be accepted with the application. We desire to make it imperative that whoever applies for naturalization shall send in his application together with certificates from three natural born British subjects, two of whom must be householders and the other a justice of the peace. I trust that after the applicant has filled the form which is provided, in which he is forced to make full declaration as to his identity, the length of his stay in the country, the manner in which he entered the country, his family, his knowledge of one of the two languages, his character and so on, accompanied by the three certificates of which I have spoken, the department will have some reason to believe that the application is made in good faith.


John Arthur Clark: Would the justice of the peace have the right to charge a fee for giving such a certificate?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think you will find a justice of the peace always willing to give a certificate in a bona fide case.


John Arthur Clark: Would he have the right to charge a fee? Is there anything to prohibit it?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Of course it is up to the
applicant to secure the certificate, and it is up to the applicant to publish notice of his petition. We will not consider an application for naturalization until the applicant has obtained the necessary certificates and until he has given full publicity to his intention of becoming naturalized. I do not suppose my hon. friend objects to that.


John Arthur Clark: The minister is not answering my question. Has the justice of the peace a legal right to charge a fee for giving such a certificate?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is covered by the
laws of the different provinces, but in regard to this act we desire to place on the statutes a section which will state that we cannot consider a petition until it is thus presented to us. Just at this point I might say why in the first instance I thought the regulations might be left to the department. There are cases where it will be pretty hard to comply even with these regulations, but I have become convinced that we should not deal with these individual cases where some people may encounter some inconvenience; it is better to put our regulations on the statutes. I am satisfied as to that, although I know there may be minor difficulties; if it is in the statute, however, there will be no way out of it. Sometimes an applicant comes to the department; we may know him very well and he may be in excellent standing. Because of his own negligence he has not become naturalized, but he desires to travel or to do something which requires him to be a British subject. So he asks us to give him a certificate immediately, and it proves very annoying to some of these persons to be unable to obtain a certificate in such a way. Under the old law an applicant had to appear

Naturalization Act
before a court; there was a minimum delay of three months before the certificate could be issued, and under this proposed amendment he will have to wait at least two months. So I say that in certain cases it would have been better if we had some little discretion in the granting of certificates, and that is the reason why I did not plan at first to include our regulations in the statute. However, I have become convinced that in the majority of cases, for the welfare of the country generally and in order to safeguard the granting of certificates, it might be better to disregard these individual cases and not place a discretion in these matters in the hands of any Secretary of State. This refers to myself as well as to my successors, although I feel quite secure and desire to make no prophecy for the future. However, I do agree with my hon. friend that some little hardships will occasionally occur from the fact that there is no discretion whatever left with the minister as to regulations.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I do not wish
to interrupt the minister, but I take it that he has practically made his statement now, and before he sits down I would like him to say whether he proposes to have someone in authority personally see each one of these applicants, and if so, what machinery he proposes to use for that purpose.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is not proposed;
that is the point I was going to take up next. The difference between the system now proposed and the reference to the courts is that the applicant must appear before the court now, while in future he will not be asked to appear before the department. On that point, I desire to say, in the first place, that even in the old bill there was some provision for certain applicants that could not appear before the court. If my hon. friend will refer to section 25 of the act, as it now stands unamended, and which reads as follows:
The applicant shall produce to the court such evidence, that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this act, as the court may require and shall also personally appear before the court for examination unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that he is prevented from so appearing by some good and sufficient cause.
Under the new system, the applicants will not appear before the Department of the Secretary of State, but that department will have the right to call in any of them if they so desire. But it is not contemplated to do so; it is contemplated to follow the British practice to have the application accompanied by a certificate, such as I have described; to give the fullest notice to the application through

the newspapers, and by posting, as I have said; and,after that, to have the case investigated by the officers of the mounted police, as regards character and knowledge of language, and by the Immigration department, as regards the five years residence required. I have mentioned the other officers, merely to show that the work of the mounted police could be amplified and completed by other sources. The actual practice of the department is to have every case investigated by the mounted police. At this point, I may say that this is also the practice followed in Great Britain.


George Halsey Perley: The minister misunderstood my question. I was not asking whether he proposed to have the applicant come to the department, but I was asking whether he proposed to have the applicant seen personally, in each case, by someone in authority. I understood the minister to say that he would employ the procedure he is using in the Northwest, by which a mounted policeman would see these men, and that then he intended to follow it up. He has stated, as I understand, that he proposes to have someone see the applicants personally. What would he do in his own city of Montreal, for instance, if an application came from there under this new proposed act? Would he have anyone in authority see the person, in order to make sure that it was all bona fide?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The applicant will have to secure certificates from three natural born British subjects, two of whom are householders and one of whom is a justice of the peace. To a large degree, that certificate will compensate for the present practice of a reference to the courts. But besides that, the department will conduct its inquiry through the police, as it has done in the past.


George Halsey Perley: What would you do in your own city of Montreal?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Do the same thing as in any other city.


George Halsey Perley: What machinery
would you use in place of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; whom would you send to see the applicant to make sure that the application was bona fide?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We will have the same machinery there as anywhere else in the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The mounted
police are there; they are a Dominion force; not a Northwest force only.

Naturalization Act


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The leader of the opposition, and other hon. members, do not seem to attach much importance to the inquiry made by the police. I would like to point out that that is the practice in England-reading from the report of the imperial conference of 1911 on imperial naturalization, the report of the interdepartmental naturalization committee at page 142 is as follows:
(a) evidence of good character; and
(bj evidence that he has an adequate knowledge of the English language.
As regards (a), it is the practice of the Home Office that in each case there should be a police report on the applicant's character, which further has to be vouched for by four referees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By what?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: By four referees. We have made it three, according to the Australian practice, one of whom must be a justice of the peace.
It is not merely the person who has been convicted of serious crimes that has to be guarded against, but the person who would be an undesirable citizen and who would be liable to expulsion under the Aliens Act if convicted of any offence punishable by imprisonment.
My reason in reading this is to show that it is the British practice to have the cases investigated by the police. In the procedure that we are going to follow, we will requir^ that every application shall be advertised in the local newspaper, by the applicant himself, and to be posted, by our own means, in a nearby post office. In the second place, the application will have to be accompanied by certificates signed by three natural bom British subjects, one of whom is a justice of the peace. Surely, after all I have said so many times, the leader of the opposition will not rise and say, "The minister has not replied to my question."	.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Chairman,
there are such things as fraudulent certificates. Would this method enable the minister to discover cases of that kind?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, there
would have to be fraud, first, from the applicant, and, secondly, from the three persons signing the certificate. Surely, a person committing such a fraud would not dare to defy public opinion by publishing a notice in the paper.


George Halsey Perley: They might all
be made by the one man, if they were fraudulent.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is why we have
provided for *n investigation by the police.
When we get an application of this kind the police will visit the localitiy, see the persons who presumably have signed the certificate, and find out whether they have really signed it or not. It is the easiest thing in the world.


George Halsey Perley: Will the minister make that investigation? That is what I am trying to bring out.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: 
Mr. SMOKE:: Does t'he minister propose to incorporate in the statute the schedule of regulations? If so, we should have them before the committee, and if not, we shall have a statute passed without any regulations.

Naturalization Act


Mr. RINERET:: 
Mr. HOCKEN:: The minister is not facile in making the best of a bad case. He is altogether too diffuse and redundant to be convincing. He has made a long explanation of the bill amending the act, but I do not think he has convinced any person who is not simply bound by party ties himself, that the proposed change is in the interest of the country or of good government.
The situation at the present is that the minister has absolute discretion in granting naturalization. Everyone will admit that it is impossible for him to investigate and that he must have some person to advise him whether or not the party applying is entitled to naturalization. Under the present act we have the most reputable and dependable people in the Dominion of Canada appointed to advise the minister. The gravamen of my complaint is that he substitutes for those dependable and reputable men all three partisans who can make a report such as they think will be in the interest of the party which is in power. If the government changes, this party will probably benefit, but until it does, that party benefits. A man who is applying for naturalization will have, so long as party politics are what they are in this country, no trouble in getting three native-born Canadians to vouch for him. In the western provinces there has not been a Conservative government since 1905, so that every justice of the peace in Alberta and Saskatchewan and many in Manitoba are appointees of the Liberal party and whatever justice of the peace we have to sign these papers in those provinces will foe a partisan, a man who has been given that dignity because of his services to the party.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Does the same thing not apply to judges?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not think so. I know judges are appointed partly for political considerations, but the responsibility imposed upon them leads them to act more carefully and judicially after they have been appointed than they would do before. The traditions

of the bench, are such as to have great influence on a man after he is appointed, no matter by what party. The judiciary of Canada maintains a high standard and every member of it, whether he is a county or high court judge, is keen to maintain the best traditions of the position. A justice of the peace, who is a partisan appointee, could easily dig up others of the same stripe, and whether the man was qualified or not, whether he could speak English or French, whether he had been five years in the country or whether he had the other qualifications or not, if the justice of peace lacked that sense of responsibility which is inherent in the judges he would send on that man's application. I am surprised that any body of responsible public men, having due regard for their reputations in the public service, would introduce a bill of this character into the House of Commons. They Me open before the country to the charge of making it easy, in order to perpetuate the party in power, to naturalize men who are not qualified for naturalization. I do not suppose many hon. gentlemen opposite would resort to any practices of that kind, but at election time there are men who are not altogether of the type of the men who sit on the other side. We have the Baldy Robb case. We have not forgotten the "thin red line" in Manitoba during *fhe Sifton regime, when thousands if not tens of thousands of men who had been in that province for many years were struck off the list simply by having a thin red line run through their names. We have not forgotten Mr. Leach.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Why cannot you complete the picture while you are at it?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will complete the picture for my hon. friend. There was the burning of the ballots in the West Elgin election. There was the instruction by the chief organizer of the party to deputy returning officers how they could spoil ballots. There was a Sunday afternoon spent in the Grand Central hotel where they were instructed to put a piece of lead pencil under their thumb nail so that they could spoil a ballot if they wished to do so.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Those were not
British-born who did that.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: This particular thumb nail artist was Canadian born and he has been very prominent recently.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And the part of the
picture the hon. member is now dealing with is apparently Ontario.

Naturalization Act


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Let me direct my hon.
friend's attention to the cruise of the Minnie M. from Sault Ste. Marie where men voted who had no more right to vote in that constituency than my hon. friend has. All this kind of thing has gone on. I am not claiming perfection for this party; I do not want this party to be in a position where it could do such things as that. Men who have a regard for their reputation as public men should hesitate before they open the door to charges of abuses of that kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend wish to have it inferred that those in all the other British dominions and in Great Britain itself, who have passed similar enactments, have such ulterior motives as he is describing?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not know that all
the acts are the same. In Great Britain the geographical position is entirely different,; they cannot send a deputy returning officer into the bush with his poll as happened in 1925.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: And in 1926
also.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The point I am making- and I think the whole thing rests upon this; it does so far as I am concerned-is that we have now the most reputable and dependable men in Canada to advise the Secretary of State who has absolute discretion. Why change that? Surely if some little extra trouble is imposed upon the man applying for naturalization, he should be willing to put up with it, because he is being granted by this country the greatest privilege the country has to give to anybody. It is no hardship upon him to have to take measures that are reasonable to satisfy the Secretary of State that the recommendation that is coming from him can be depended upon. I venture to predict that if this legislation goes through, the party on the other side of the house will regret it. The people of this country are extremely sensitive to electoral corruption and they have had reason to be suspicious of it, and that party which opens the door to the possibility of all this will be judged by the people when the time comes.
Mr. NEILL; With the amendments now in the bill, I think there is no objection to its passage so far at least as British Columbia is concerned.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


Mr. NEILL:: Does my hon. friend wish
to say anything?


John Arthur Clark: Is the hon. member speaking to me?


Alan Webster Neill: Does anybody want to say
anything?


John Arthur Clark: I thought you were looking at me. I do not want to speak to you.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard flatters himself. He is not the only man on the opposite side.


John Arthur Clark: But you were looking at
me.


Alan Webster Neill: I would have been against
this bill as originally introduced on account of some of the objections that have been raised, but with the amendments I think it meets all the objections that are reasonable. It has been stated again and again that even if it costs a little more, it would be worth while for the privilege of becoming a British subject. But it costs, not a little more, but a great deal more. I can see the point of view of hon. members who represent cities, because there is no necessity for this act in the city. It is in the country districts that it is needed, and there is a good deal of country in Canada which deserves consideration in connection with this matter. It is very expensive and in many cases the expense is prohibitive, for an alien to get naturalized. It is all very well to say that a judge goes around. The judge goes around one or two centres, and you cannot get him to go anywhere else. Let me quote one particular case. The county court judge who is going to sit at a particular place notifies the registrar perhaps ten days before he is coming, or perhaps, two weeks. There are people in that district who want to go to that court to be naturalized, but they receive their mail only once a month, or perhaps twice, and by the time they receive the notification from the registrar it is too late to get to the court. Or the steamer may take a little longer than was expected and the applicant may not reach the court in time, and he has to come back again in three months. The cost of all that to an alien, to poor people living in out-of-the way places, is enormous. It has cost a man $200 to get naturalized. The average alien is not too ready to get naturalized, and he should be encouraged, rather than discouraged, in a reasonable way, at any rate, and it is for that reason that I am supporting this bill.
A great deal has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite of the better ability which the judiciary have for sizing up a man's qualifications for citizenship. They say that a judge is trained to weigh evidence, and so on. Perhaps he is better trained to do that

Naturalization Act
than men working in very different positions, but what opportunity does the judge have to judge this man? The man comes into court. He is clean, sober, properly dressed, and carefully posted by the lawyer or agent who represents him just what to say in answer to the judge's remarks. I have done it myself.
I know the sort of questions the judge is going to ask, and I tell the 'applicant the answers he should give, and of course they are nice and proper, and he gets by with them. The ten minutes that he is before the judge is the only opportunity the judge has of finding out whether that man will make a good citizen. The roan stammers out a few words of broken English, and thinks that conditions in Russia are going a bit too far, or something of that kind, and he gets his certificate.
But under the proposed system to be carried out by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State makes his own investigation -and after all he does it now-not personally, of course, as has been so often suggested, but generally by means of the police. Do you think, Mr. Chairman, that a policeman who goes into a little country place containing fifty people is not in a position to get the real dope, as we say, on that mans pedigree? Do you not think that a man s neighbours among whom he has lived for at least five years would be in a better position to size him up and gauge his qualifications for citizenship than the judge who sees him only for ten minutes? They know whether he beats his wife, gets drunk, and does not pay his bills, or whatever it is that characterizes an undesirable citizen. If there is anything against a man, you can surely rely upon somebody in these small places bringing it up, because there is always somebody who has more or less of a grudge against a particular man. The most cursory investigation on the ground is much better than half a dozen investigations by a judge who only sees a man for a few minutes in court.
I suppose we are discussing the whole of these amendments, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be better to take them up separately, but they are all part of section 1, and therefore I presume it is in order for me to move the following amendment which I propose to subsection 24, which now reads:
An applicant for a certificate of naturalization shall produce to the minister certificates of character and of adequate knowledge of the English or French language from three natural born British subjects, two of whom are householders and one of whom is a justice of the peace.
[Mr. Neill. 1
I propose that it read as follows:
An applicant for a certificate of naturalization shall produce to the minister certificates of character and of adequate knowledge of the English or French language from two natural born British subjects who are householders and from a justice of the peace.
The idea being that we should not require the justice of the peace to be a natural born British subject. Otherwise the clause is practically the same. I propose that amendment for two reasons. In the first place, it is very difficult and very inconvenient in some districts to get hold of a justice of the peace who is a natural bom British subject. On the Pacific coast and on the prairie there are considerable settlements of foreigners, Scandinavians, and so on, scattered up and down the coast or over the prairie. They have come in there in a block, and after a number of years residence, not less than five, they have become naturalized. It becomes necessary to have a justice of the peace in that district, and it is most suitable and convenient and proper to pick out from among these men one whose qualifications in education and character fit him for the position, rather than picking out a British born one, who perhaps may not live within fifty miles. Therefore, the custom is to appoint the best one of these men, and I would resent the suggestion that he should be placed in a different category from the British bom justice of the peace. Some hon. member opposite drew a very distinct line between the judiciary and justices of the peace. The justice of the peace is just as reputable in many cases in his own sphere as the judge, and just as free from political bias. I do not want to attack the judiciary, but I have seen a commission presided over by a judge which was a disgrace to the judiciary because of the partisan attitude taken by the judge. It is an insult to a justice of the peace who has been forty years resident in this country and twenty years a justice of the peace-I am speaking of a case within my own knowledge -without ever a shadow of reproach, to tell him now that he is not fit to certify whether or not a man is likely to become a good citizen. It is uncalled for, and it would make the law very difficult to enforce because in these small places there is only one justice of the peace, and the applicant if he could not find him there could not go to another settlement, cut off by water or mountain, and where perhaps he would not be known. It would really nullify practically all the benefits of this act if you insisted upon the jus-

Naturalization Act
tice of the peace being a natural bora British subject. Therefore, my suggestion is that certificates should be granted by two natural born British subjects and a justice of the peace.
Mr. M'ANION: Mr. Chairman, as one of those whose constituency contains a large number of people who at one time or another apply for naturalization, and having discussed the bill briefly the first time it was before us, I wish to supplement my former remarks. I submit this case amply proves the necessity of every bill being subjected to a thorough discussion. As introduced, the bill contained two very short clauses of eleven lines, counting the introductory clause; whereas to-day the Secretary of State has brought down a fairly lengthy bill of something over thirty lines, and containing two or three important departures from his first measure. In fact this does not resemble the original bill at all. The original bill conferred full powers on the Secretary of State; to him the application for naturalization had to be made, and if he chose he could immediately grant the application, as he said in reply to a question I put to him. Last week the Secretary of State amended his bill to make the period sixty days instead of forthwith. That was an improvement, although not quite satisfactory. Now he comes forward with two amendments, covering three other points: one, the applicant must advertise in the press that he has applied for naturalization; two, the applicant must get three certificates; three, the judiciary are in a sense reinstated in the form of justices of the peace. In a word, the Secretary of State has absolutely turned his original bill upside down and converted it into a new bill. I think in its new form it is considerably improved, and presumably if we continue discussing the measure for another two or three days the Secretary of State may be able to draft a bill that will be satisfactory to the people of this country.
Let me deal briefly with some of these points. In the first place, the minister objects to the measure by which in the past the judiciary dealt with the examination of applicant for naturalization. As I have said, he has to a certain extent gone back to the old conditions by availing himself of the services of justices of the peace. This being so, why not leave the judiciary to function as in the past? The outstanding objection to the bill as originally introduced was the lack of notice. Because of the frailty of all ministers, of whatever government, there is danger in the absence of sufficient notice of large numbers of people being naturalized, by the hundred
or the thousand, in certain constituencies in order to turn elections. In its original form the bill made it possible for applications to be sent in to the Secretary of State, and if he were unscrupulous enough he could accept the application immediately and allow the newly naturalized citizens to vote. Undoubtedly that could have been done. In fact, as was pointed out in the previous discussion. that has been done in the past. Twenty years ago or more I saw a member of this house get together hundreds of applicants and secure their naturalization hurriedly in time to vote, and so turn an election. In many cases those naturalized had not fulfilled the legal requirements. The change to sixty days is an improvement, but I think the period is too short. If this bill becomes law a candidate a few months before an election could get hundreds of people naturalized and secure their support, and in a tight constituency this would be sufficient to turn the election in his favour. He would simply have to get three householders, friends of his, to hand out certificates. The justice of the peace, I admit, might be a little more difficult to persuade, but every candidate, of either party, has plenty of friends, and they would say: "After all we want these people to become Canadians." That is why I submit that sixty days is too short a period. It should be lengthened. In the United States an applicant for naturalization has to give two years' notice. We are in much the same position as the United States; in that country are many immigrants who do not speak English, and we have many who do not speak English or French. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that we copy the system of a country whose conditions are similar to our own, rather than the system of a dominion whose conditions are altogether unlike ours. For instance, in Australia 99 per cent of the people are British. I think practically the same condition obtains in all the British dominions except Canada. Therefore I submit that sixty days is too short in Canada, and if the government is going to insist on the passage of this bill the period should be made at least twice as long. In fact it would be preferable to make it six months. It makes very little difference to the man who wishes to become naturalized if his application is held up for six months. This would to a large extent remove the possibility of the abuses to which I have referred.
I think those are the two big questions for us to decide, Mr. Chairman, and in deciding them we must be governed by what will benefit the country as a whole. I think the best minds in both parties wish to promote de-
Naturalization Act

cency and purity in our political life. Then let us co-operate to that end. Let us do away with this sixty-day clause, which may lead to that crookedness in elections of which we have already had far too much. I am not claiming absolute purity for the party on this side, nor do I impute every political evil to the party on the other side; but I do claim that we shall have failed in our duty if we do not so amend this bill as to lead not only to the betterment of our citizenship but of our public life. Before he proceeds further the Secretary of State should give serious consideration to the sixty-day clause with a view to extending it very substantially.


Mr. GLEN:: I think everyone will agree
with the leader of the opposition, Mr. Chairman, when he says in respect to this bill that no more important measure has been brought before the house this session. I am certain that the Secretary of State can have no quarrel with the discussion. It is altogether fit and proper that this measiure should be discussed, not in a spirit of acrimony, but judicially with a view to ensure that nothing shall detract in the slightest degree from the certificate of naturalization as at present granted. The duties and obligations which are implied in a certificate of naturalization should not be diminished in the slightest degree by the bill, and for that reason I propose to deal with the bill as seriously as I can and without any casual references. I am not here for the purpose of making debating capital, as seems to be the habit of some speakers; the subject is too important. When the bill was first introduced by the minister, I, like many others, viewed it with a good deal of disfavour. Had the bill in its original form come before the house for a vote I should have been compelled to vote against it, because I realized then, as I am glad the minister realizes, that some safeguards had to be inserted in it in order to make it something worth while. In its original form, as the Secretary of State introduced it, and with no amendments such as he proposes, it would have made the Secretary of State the absolute and uncontrolled judge as to whether a certificate of naturalization should be granted.
The leader of the opposition pointed out strongly and clearly the practices of the past -practices with which most members in this house are familiar, and practices which I think every member is determined shall not occur again so far as he can prevent them. We all agree, I think, that it is impossible to change human nature by act of parliament. It is possible, of course, and eom-

paratively easy to change an act of parliament. But one can imagine, if the bill had been left in its original form, what might have happened in the time of an election when the Secretary of State would have been inundated, from every political friend of his, with applications for certificates of naturalization. He would be more than human if he could refuse the solicitations of his friends. If he did refuse them his political life would not be worth a groat, and he would very soon realize, whatever his wishes might be, that political exigencies would make it so that he could not refuse applications coming to him. For that reason therefore I was glad indeed to find the Secretary of State had introduced the amendment of sixty days.
The last speaker, referring to the sixty days, complains that it is not sufficient. Perhaps it is not sufficient. I have no fixed opinion with regard to the number of days, only I would say this: I have had considerable experience with regard to naturalization throughout the west and I realize that sixty days is surely in all conscience long enough after a period of five years' probation during which the applicant has been qualifying. I make no strong point regarding the number of days, because I cannot see any danger that is likely to occur where you have other safeguards in the bill with regard to the posting of the notice, and also in connection with the inquiries that have to be made.


Robert James Manion: I would point out to my
hon. friend, as a matter of information, that in the United States the two years is not in addition to the five years; it is part of the five years as notice of intention. If we made it six months here, or a year, that time could be included in the five years.


James Allison Glen: The applicant must have resided within the country for a period of five years. He then makes his application; but he can be granted naturalization only after the five-year period. It is not at all likely that he will make his application before the end of that period, and the two months will be reckoned in addition to the five years.
The leader of the opposition clearly and correctly stated the provisions of the different acts in the different dominions-Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland. He then stated the conditions under which the act was framed. In the first instance, as to the principle of these various acts, he pointed out that the law was framed by British draughtsmen and the principle has been incorporated in all the bills. But there is one fundamental difference which he now

Naturalization Act
admits-and which, to be fair, I do not think he specifically denied in his original remarks *-namely, that the principle enunciated and set forth in the statutes of these different countries is also the principle that obtains in the Dominion of Canada. That principle is this, that a certificate of naturalization must be secured under section 4, which I do not wish to read. He then dealt with the question of procedure. On that question the leader of the opposition took a stand and made his strongest objection to the bill. There came to my mind several questions that might arise in relation to the matter of procedure. In the first place, will the application to the Secretary of State direct, instead of through the agency of the courts, be a retrograde step? And, particularly, will it tend to destroy the sense of value of the privilege which a certificate of naturalization is intended to convey? Can a certificate be granted more easily, with the present amendments, and with less expense to the applicant? And, if so, is it desirable that such certificate should be granted in that way and that we should expedite procedure and minimize expense? And will the certificate be granted only after the fullest inquiry is made, as at present obtains?
Now, the leader of the opposition bases his objection, first, on the effect of the principle embodied in the statute and its relation to the regulations governing procedure. I am afraid the hon. gentleman may consider me guilty of heresy when I say that I am by no means enamoured of legislation which need not necessarily go before the courts. During all my practice I have always endeavoured to keep my clients out of court. I find that 99 per cent of the people with whom I deal have a horror of the courts, and it may be that the one per cent who do like litigation are abnormal people. I have had considerable experience in obtaining certificates of naturalization, and I am bound to say that I see no particular reason why the appearance before a court adds to the value of a certificate. Most people will agree that courts of law are at best drab affairs; the atmosphere of a court is certainly not conducive to happiness, contentment or camaraderie. The hail fellow spirit is conspicuous by its absence, and my experience has been that instead of creating a feeling of citizenship and fellowship, in the granting of a certificate of naturalization, such as it might warrant, appearance in court has had indeed the very opposite effect. I have never known of any man making an application to a court who viewed with anticipatory glee his appearance there. As a matter of
fact I have always found people very much averse to appearing in court.
I was interested in hearing what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said with regard to the granting of certificates of naturalization. He made a suggestion, which I myself have already made, on other occasions in other places, that if it were possible to have the certificate of naturalization made the subject of some ceremonial in the country it would add greatly to the value of the certificate. The hon. member suggested citizens' day, the first of July, when it might be possible to grant certificates to all those who were entitled to naturalization. They could appear before some public forum and be granted the certificates with all the ceremonial necessary to bring home to the applicants the fact that they were obtaining something really worth while.
It seems to me that the granting of an application by the Secretary of State direct rather than through the agency of the courts is no retrograde step. It is something which each of us can support. The question that next arises in my mind is this:	Can a certificate be granted more easily, under the present bill, and with less expense to the applicant; and, if so, is it desirable to expedite procedure and minimize expense? I think everyone who has any knowledge of the subject will agree that especially in the prairie provinces the expense is almost prohibitive to a great many of the applicants. I know of men right in my own riding who are not aJble to become naturalized because they have not the money to spend; these men have come into the country in the regular way and have taken up land; they have been here five or ten years and now wish to become citizens of Canada. I know they would make good citizens, but because they have not the money they are unable to get their certificates. If this bill will reduce their expenses I think we should support it as strongly as possible, and if it will expedite the procedure I think that is another reason why we should support it. My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni has proposed an amendment, and I think his suggestion should be adopted. I know several justices of the peace in different parts of the country who are not natural born British subjects, and some of them are located in districts where they would be requested to give certificates to hundreds of foreigners. It would be a tremendous hardship to these people if they had to go to another district in order to obtain that certificate, and this is one reason why I think the amendment suggested by my hon. friend should be supported.
Naturalization Act

Some hon. members have spoken with regard to the naturalization of people residing in cities, but I say with all respect and deference that any member who knows only the conditions which exist in cities cannot speak authoritatively upon this subject as it affects the country. The ease with which certificates may be secured in a city certainly does not obtain in the country. It has been said that the delay which takes place is not so great, but sometimes it is very long. Occasionally you will find that a judge sits only three times a year; if t'he applicant is unable to attend that court his application may not be heard for six or nine months. Certainly that is a hardship to him, especially if he has to drive twenty-five or thirty miles when the thermometer is forty degrees below zero. Those who have had experience in driving a similar distance under those conditions know that it is a considerable hardship, especially when they are looking forward to something which does not give them very much pleasure.
I was anxious to know what inquiries would be made in connection with these certificates. The leader of the opposition made that a very strong point in his case, and I do not disagree with him at all; I think the inquiries should be as complete as possible. From what I could hear of the statement made to-day by the Secretary of State I understand he proposes to utilize the existing machinery m making these inquiries; that is, it will be done by the mounted police or in some cases by homestead inspectors. From my experience I would say that no better plan can be evolved in the Dominion of Canada. The members of the mounted police are imbued with the esprit de corps and the traditions of their famous force; they make personal calls upon each of the applicants, find out all the circumstances, inquire of the neighbours and make reports which I am sure can be accepted by the Secretary of State as being absolutely correct in almost every particular. Of course you will find the occasional exception, but there is no body in the Dominion of Canada which can so meet the requirements of this act as the mounted police. I know the inquiries they make; they go round the district and ascertain whether or not an applicant is suitable, and I submit that their reports can be relied upon.
The question of language was one of the strongest points in the argument of the leader of the opposition, who said that no application for naturalization should be granted unless the applicant possessed an adequate knowledge of either English or French. I would point out to the leader of the opposition that I have seen men in court who
fMr. Glen.]
could not stand a cross-examination in English. but who would make good citizens. The leader of the opposition directed his question to me personally, and asked if I had never seen in a court of law witnesses who had naturalization papers but who were unable to give their evidence except through an interpreter. Of course I have seen that many times, but I will go further and say that I have seen men in a court obtain their certificates who spoke very halting English. Certainly if these men were to undergo a cross-examination they could not give their evidence without the aid of an interpreter. But I have known of men of this kind who were of excellent character; I know the work they have been doing, the families they have been raising and sending to school, and I know they would make very good citizens of this country. Therefore I would not make that question of language so important that the ability to withstand a cross-examination in court Should be the basis upon which a certificate should be granted. The-mounted police, in reporting on the language qualification, would exercise a good deal of discretion, and I think they may be relied upon. After all, it is not the men coming to this country in the later years of their life who are likely to acquire a fluent knowledge of English; the real reason for naturalization is to assimilate the children into our national life. I think that is the strongest point against the argument of the leader of the opposition, who suggested that a fluent or an adequate knowledge of English must be possessed by an applicant before a certificate can be granted.
I should like to make a Suggestion to the Secretary of State just at this point. In his amendments he is proposing that an applicant for naturalization must advertise his intention in a newspaper published at or nearest to his place of residence. I suggest that in a great many oases the nearest newspaper is published some distance away, and if the amendment could be changed to provide that the advertisement shall be inserted in a newspaper published or circulated at or nearest to his place of residence, I think it would meet the situation better. You would then overcome a difficulty which will be experienced by many applicants. I have already pointed out that if two natural born British subjects certify to the character of the applicant, together with a justice of the peace, who may be natural born or naturalized, that should be sufficient to justify the Secretary of State in granting a certificate of naturalization. If this were granted I should have

Naturalization Act
no hesitation in supporting this bill in its entirety, satisfied that nothing has been taken away from the act and that a certificate of naturalization will have the same value after these proposed changes as it now has under the present act.


Mr. PETTIT:: I wish to make a few remarks along a particular line with respect to this bill, but before doing so I want to express my great regret, to put it mildly, at the contemplated change in the act. I think the procedure under the present act is much better, and I regard it as very inadvisable indeed to depart from it, for reasons which have been fully covered by hon. gentlemen on this side of the house. My regret is based on my personal experience in my own constituency, from my observation of the adjoining constituency, and from my judgment generally in the matter.
As to the difficulties that might be encountered in the carrying out of the present act in remote parts of the country, I think they would be amply met by amendment to the present act to provide that judges or other judicial officers, or reputable men selected by the judges, shall visit well recognized centres within striking distance of the settlers generally.
The remarks I wish to make along the particular line relate to the length of residence in Canada in 'connection with repatriation of British born subjects. By section 4, subsection 5 of the present act of 1927, which is the same as section 5, subsection 2 of the former Naturalization Acts of 1914 and 1920, it was provided that the Secretary of State, "in any other special case", might, if he thought fit, grant a certificate of naturalization, although t'he four years' residence or five years' service had not been within the last eight years before the application. By order in council passed on the 4th day of May, 1927, the Secretary of State was empowered to issue special certificates of naturalization to natural born Canadians who, having taken out naturalization papers in the United States of America, had returned to Canada to reside, and that such certificates might be granted after a residence in Canada of one year, the application being made direct to the Secretary of State. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the length of residence should be much less than one year-it should be not more than three months-and that the length of residence should apply not only to natural born Canadians but to British born subjects, who of course in law include natural born Canadians. I submit it would be well
if the minister would provide, by a further addition to his amendment, that the application of natural born British subjects who have been naturalized in the United States should be considered special cases, and that, upon a residence of three months in Canada, such British born subjects could be repatriated.
I quite appreciate Canadian citizenship, with allegiance to the British crown, ought not to be lightly thrown off and lightly assumed again, but we well know that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens and British subjects living in the United States through unavoidable circumstances, and who long for the day, and are ready at the very earliest opportunity to take advantage oi it, to return to this country again. The love of their native Canada and their love of the empire still bums 'brightly and fervently in their hearts. We should be ready, therefore, to receive them with open arms, and one way of doing that is to provide in the act that when they do come back they may assume their Canadian citizenship and their British allegiance upon a residence of not longer than three months. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that he take that into consideration and add it as an addition to the amendment that he is now bringing in, or as a further amendment to the act.


John Gordon Ross: Several hon.
members on the opposite side of the house have stressed the danger of giving these people naturalization under this newly amended act. One of the supposed dangers is the sixty day clause that is proposed to be put into the act. At present, under the old act, there is stipulated only three months, and the notice of application is posted only in the court house. Under this new act the notice will be advertised in the press, and will be posted in the post office nearest to the applicant's place of residence. Surely, that is far better than placing the notice in the court house, where one is filed on top of the other and in many cases they are seen by only a few7 people.
I do not want to go into the technical or legal side of this question, but in our part of the country it is a matter of great importance. There are thousands of people in that country who would make good citizens and who would like to be naturalized( but it is so difficult for them to become naturalized that they are not becoming Canadian citizens. In the first place they have to go to a court centre and make application
Naturalization Act

before the clerk of the court; that is one trip. Then an investigation has to be made, and they have to come before the judge again; that is another trip. If the judge happens to have adjourned the court for a certain time, they may have to stay a day or two or they may have to go back. There is so much red tape about becoming naturalized in Canada that thousands of people- who should be naturalized, and who would make good Canadian citizens, are not becoming naturalized.
The impression has been put abroad from this house and from other parts of the country that western Canada is filled with foreigners and undesirable citizens. That is not the case. In the province from which I come, Saskatchewan, we have something over 800,000 people, of whom over 600,000 are British bom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Gordon Ross: And of the
195,000 who are not British born, 75,000 were bom in the United States. Our people are a very progressive people and, as a whole, compare favourably with those in any other part of Canada. After all we are endeavouring to build a nation, and I think we have lost sight of the fact that you cannot build a nation in twenty-five or fifty years; it takes much longer than that, as the experience of other nations has shown. These people who are coming to our country are the same people that built the British nation-Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, French, Jutes, Anglos and Saxons. They are the people who are the basic stock of the British. In coming to Great Britain, becoming naturalized and growing up and building the nation they did not make such a bad job of it. After all, the Englishman is a pretty good kind of citizen. I do not see why we should not be ready, under proper safeguards, to naturalize these people and take them into our families. The leader of the opposition in his speech the other day pointed out one or two isolated cases of people in western Canada who had become naturalized and who had not played the game with us during the great war. As reported on page 2551 of Hansard, he said that in -one case a man who had been a German barber in the city of Calgary and who had become a naturalized Canadian citizen -had been seen as a prisoner of war. Then he said:
What did we witness during the war? I wonder if hon. gentlemen recall in their own communities what I have seen in mine.
That may have happened in the case of some of our naturalized citizens, but it would

be much better for the leader of the opposition and everyone else in the house to stress the point that not only hundreds but thousands of these people who were naturalized Canadian citizens or even who were not naturalized, went to France to fight for Canada and many of them laid down their lives for us there. They were good enough then, but under our Naturalization Act some of them who have come back cannot be naturalized.
The language qualification is another feature. They must have an adequate knowledge of either English or French. It is right and proper that they should have at least a limited knowledge of either English or French, especially English in the western part of Canada, because in many portions of the west French 'would not be of march use to them.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How would my hon. friend define the word " adequate "?


John Gordon Ross: Everybody who can live in this country for five, ten or fifteen years at peace and do business with his neighbour has possibly an adequate knowledge of the English language.


Mr. SPENCER:: There are many people who have been in this country for five or six years who can hardly speak a word of English.


John Gordon Ross: That may be. In the country from which the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) comes, there are probably half a million people who cannot speak English. There are many people in the north of Scotland who cannot speak English. They speak Gaelic. These aliens are invited to Canada; we give them land; we tell them we will treat them as equals, and yet we put obstacles in their way preventing them from becoming native citizens. They want to become Canadian citizens and when they do so they -are proud of the fact that they are Canadian citizens.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Gordon Ross: At six o'clock,
Mr. Chairman, I was referring to a remark of the hon. leader of the opposition, that some years ago thousands of people were naturalized in Canada just prior to an election. The fact that those thousands of people were naturalized just prior to an election is perhaps not exactly right, but only because an election was coming on at that time. I do not think there have been any ill effects from having so many of these people naturalized at that time. They

Naturalization Act
have been good citizens of this country, and I have not yet heard any arguments from the opposite side of the house as to why they should not have been naturalized. There should, of course, be certain safeguards, and we should not have an act whereby people could be naturalized just a few days prior to an election.
There is another point. I do not see why we should, put obstacles in the way of people becoming naturalized in this country. If we invite these people into this country; if we bring them here and have them live amongst us for five years or more, mingling with us and their children mingling with our children in the schools, paying taxes, buying made-in-Canada goods, improving and building up our country, I do not see why we should not naturalize them. If they are good enough to live alongside people of this Dominion for five, ten or fifteen years, I think they are good enough to live alongside the people of any place in the British Empire, and I do not see why we should not give them British citizenship.
In the present act surely there are enough safeguards. In the first place, the applicant has to be sponsored by two natural born British citizens and by a justice of the peace. Their record is checked up by the immigration authorities; it is also checked up by the mounted police, and in my opinion that can be done more thoroughly by the police going into the district in which a man has lived for five years than it can be done by any court, because in a great many cases these people are from fifty to one hundred miles away from home when they appear in court, and the court can know very little about them, but on the other hand, the mounted police, going into the district where these people live, can find out all about them in a very short time. I do not see any danger in naturalizing these people. We have found, especially in western Canada, when we take these people into our citizenship, give them responsibility, and let them help us in our community and political life, that they make better citizens; they feel as if they were a part of the country, and they endeavour to do the best they can for the country and for their children who will come after them in this country.
There is one other point, which was touched on by the hon. member for Marquette, and that is that in a great many parts of western Canada it costs far too much to-day to become naturalized. A great many of these people do not know what the regulations are, and they go to a lawyer and they pay from ten, fifteen to twenty, and sometimes fifty dollars to get naturalization. I think we
should make the expense of getting a certificate of naturalization as reasonable as possible, so that we can take more of these people into our citizenship, because they will make good citizens. As I said before, in Saskatchewan we have 195,000 foreign born people, and we find that the children of these people speak and read and write English. Less than 4 per cent of the children in Saskatchewan between ten and twenty years of age, do not read, write and speak the English language. Some of the older people may not be fluent in the English or the French language, but their children learn the language, and so they can really carry on well in the country without a good knowledge of English or French.
I think the government is well advised to put this legislation through. There are thousands of people who will become naturalized very shortly if this legislation goes through. I do not think that my hon. friends opposite need fear at all that the act will be used to naturalize any considerable number of people for the sole purpose of voting in the next election.


Mr. MILLAR:: I have listened to the discussion in connection with this bill, and while the bill did not suit me very well at first, it is in such a form now as I think will give good satisfaction, and I can support it. Coming from a district where I have an opportunity of judging those who would become naturalized, I think it well to make a few remarks before this bill is voted on.
There seems to be a fear that we may have too large a percentage of our immigration come from the continent. While I am glad to see as many English, Irish and Scotch as we can possibly get, so long as they are physically, mentally and morally suitable, nevertheless, those who come from the continent can make a good contribution. They come from conditions that are a little more difficult even than those encountered in our pioneer life. That tells us one thing: It is quite natural to expect, and we are not surprised when we find, that they can make their way better under those difficult conditions than those of Canadian birth, or those of English, Scotch or Irish birth, who have been raised under a standard of living that is higher and under conditions that are easier.
We have in western Canada considerable land that is second class, and some that we might call third class. Those people who come to us from the continent of Europe, used to a low standard of living, accustomed to work long hours for little pay, by their industry and frugality transform such districts
Naturalization Act

into gardens. I have in mind a settlement where there are 170 families. The land is full of bluffs and sloughs and the percentage of good, arable soil is small. I think it is no reflection on our British immigrants or our Canadian sons to say that very few of them could make both ends meet on that land under the conditions that have obtained during the last ten years. Yet those immigrants from continental Europe have, as I say, turned that district into a garden and constructed good, comfortable houses. They are growing grain and other crops, thus providing freight for the railways and business for the stores. In short, they are valuable assets to this country. It is a mistake to suppose that these people are going to undercut wages. Last spring I saw three fine strapping young fellows. They could not speak a word of English. They had just refused an offer to work at $20 a month, and were standing out for higher wages, even though they required assistance to pay for breakfast. They were advised to accept $20 a month until they had learned the English language. Others have expressed fears that the low standard of living of these people will have a tendenc3' to depress our living standard; but they do not interfere with the farmers around them, they do not tend to lower the standard of living. They are an asset to the community, and I am sure the business men would be very sorry indeed if they left the district. The member for Moose Jaw has well pointed out that in Saskatchewan-where there seems to be the greatest fear that there is too large a proportion of immigration from the continent of Europe-in a population of eight hundred thousand, six hundred thousand are of British birth; that is, many of them may be of foreign parentage, but they were born in Canada or some other British dominion I have seen no sign of real danger that Canadians of British stock are likely to be outnumbered by immigrants of alien birth.
I need not cover the ground already so well covered by the member for Marquette and the member for Moose Jaw and other hon. gentlemen with regard to naturalization. I simply wish to add to what they have said as to the difficulties encountered by the applicant for citizenship. Many of our immigrants would be glad to become naturalized, for they take a pride in British citizenship, and it would be well for Canada to have them naturalized. But when after driving ten, twenty, thirty or forty miles they find the judge is too busy to deal with their applications and they must return a second time, many of these people become discouraged,
[Mr. MillarJ
especially under the conditions that have prevailed during the last few years due to scarcity of money. I think this bill provides all the necessary safeguards. No body of men enjoy to a greater degree the confidence of the people of western Canada than do the Royal Canadian Mounted P,office. They deserve that confidence, and I think they can be trusted to make inquiries of those wishing to become naturalized.


James Arthurs: What about homestead
inspectors?


John Millar: I think my hon. friend ought to have confidence in them because a goodly number were appointed by this party.


James Arthurs: I asked for the hon.
gentleman's opinion; I was not expressing my own.


John Millar: Well, I have considerable confidence in a goodly number of them. I suppose possibly a percentage should be watched, but I believe the great majority of them can be trusted to do the work well. I remember during the war some complaint was made because certain of our immigrants from continental countries with which we were at war did not feel very ready to take up arms in defence of Canada. I admit there is a difficulty in that respect. If I were to go to the United States or any other country, I know I could not throw off my love of Canada in five or even ten years. That is only natural. I would not hold it against an applicant for naturalization if he could not suppress his love for his mother country, and felt uneasy at the prospect that as a Canadian citizen he would have to fight against his native country in the event of war between that country and Canada. If he were not capable of fidelity to the country of his birth he would be a somewhat doubtful citizen of Canada. I think every hon. member would find himself in the same predicament if he became a citizen of another country and that country declared war against his native Canada. It is a difficult situation, but for my part I do not worry very much about it. I am glad the bill has been amended, and I hope it will become law, for under it I am sure we will have many thousands of Canadian citizens applying for naturalization who otherwise would delay for years in some cases. It will be an advantage to Canada to have them naturalized.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Mr. Chairman, when I used to speak more frequently in this house I put myself on record as favouring the admission of thrifty, hard-working people.

Naturalization Act
Some have asked, what about the colour line? Well, I am not so much scared about that as perhaps are some others, because I think our climate will discourage that class from coming here. I aim not in favour of investing so much money to attract immigrants. If I were at the head of the Immigration department I would expatiate on the wonderful possibilities of this vast country for those who are willing to work hard. I am strong for hard work in every department of life. I would say to them: You have the markets of the world for your products. I believe that those who have the energy to come to this country, be their resources little or big, will make good because of their initiative and industry. I am not in favour of inviting sissified, spineless people, people who are living on alms in England, and simlar types. We are spending a vast amount of money in order to promote immigration and to get hand-picked people, so to speak, to come to this country, and it is our bounden duty when they come here to facilitate their becoming naturalized with the least possible delay and with the minimum of cost to themselves. The present bill, in my opinion; alleviates the situation. I am not going to criticize the old law, but I must say that to me it savours somewhat of war time measures. I am not making any accusations against anyone in this regard. I do think however that we should make it easier for people to become naturalized when they are entitled to the privilege. Take the great republic to the south of us. Could that country have been built up to its present proportions if it had enforced a law entailing a good deal of delay and worry and expense to those seeking naturalization? Certainly not. People entered the country without any means at all and they were able to build up wonderful businesses. Some of the greatest men in that country came over carrying all their belongings in a little handkerchief or in a small tin box. There are multitudes' of people in the United States, now good American citizens, who are unable to trace their ancestry to blue blood. The majority of us in Canada can trace our ancestry back to poor people who came to this country in the hope of being able to take advantage of its resources, trusting in those resources and in the laws of the land. Why cannot we enable others now to come and make good?
I submit that we should not withhold the right of the franchise from desirable people. We are now making trade paots throughout the world, and if we pass this law it will be one of the best advertisements to the nations of Canada's greatness. It will be an assurance
to people in all quarters of the globe that, so long as they are fit to come to this country and settle, they will be able to become Canadian citizens without a great deal of delay and expense.
Those who have spoken against this legislation seem to me to have forgotten the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. Do they realize that race hatred and national hatred lead to war? Why should there be any obstacle in the matter of language? People coming from Scotland speak Gaelic and people from Holland speak Dutch; there are a multitude of languages. But why should that debar people from coming to the country? Many people in the middle western states of the American union-fathers and mothers of the present generation-came over with large families, knowing nothing of the language of the country; nor could they learn that language at their age. But their children learned the language and many of them are to-day renowned throughout the United States. I suggest that it would be a good thing for us to trace ourselves back; if we did we should find that we have not sprung from royalty, nor from people born with silver spoons in their mouths.
I submit that this bill should receive the unanimous Support of the house if we are interested in building up this country. Let us have it known throughout the world that Canada is not a country of autocrats, that she is not a country with people who have ideas of race predominance, but that she is ready to welcome all those of good character, those who are willing to work hard and help to build up the country.
It seems to me that it is time to change the present law. The cost of bringing applicants before judges is too great, and the distances they have to travel make it almost impossible for people to become naturalized. Personally I am heartily in favour of the legislation now proposed and I can see no reason whatever for any opposition to it. We need not have any fear of our institutions not being respected if this legislation passes. Let us make it thoroughly understood that this is a country where people must conform to the laws and regulations laid down; let it be known that if a riot should start at any time cold steel will be used if those law3 are not obeyed. Let us see to it that the laws are respected. But I would not withhold the franchise from those worthy of it. There are people who have lived in Canada for years without the franchise although they are fully entitled to it. Why should we put
Naturalization Act

any obstacle in their way in regard to expense and needless delay ?
I cannot see much reason in any lengthy debate on this question. People outside are looking to see what we are going to do with this legislation which is now before the committee. Immigration and naturalization are linked together so closely that if we refuse to pass this measure it will be heralded abroad, "You may go to Canada if you like, but you will never become naturalized/' The Americans have never kept people out of the United States in that way. Canadians go there and find no difficulty in becoming naturalized if they wish to become citizens of the United States. Let us also make it easier for desirable people to become naturalized in Canada. Let us do everything in conformity with the forward step which we are taking in Canada in other directions. It does not seem to me that this measure calls for any lengthy debate and I shall therefore not weary the committee longer.


Mr. GARDINER:: I have listened with
a good deal of interest to the discussion of the proposed amendments, a discussion which has been very instructive. I appreciate very much indeed the effort the Secretary of State made to enlighten the house on the whole question of naturalization. The leader of the opposition also gave the house much valuable information, which no doubt many of us lacked before we had the privilege of hearing him. My first word is this: If these amendments are likely to bring back the conditions that existed in this country prior to the passing of the act in 1914 I am absolutely opposed to them. I remember the conditions that prevailed in Saskatchewan in my early homesteading experience. In my judgment nothing would deter people coming to this country from thinking well of the country so much as the manner in which certificates were issued for naturalization, particularly around election time. I have known government officials to have their pockets full of these certificates all ready to hand out to those who were willing to promise their support to the particular candidate of those officials. If these amendments are going to bring back, even in part, such a condition as that then I think this house should be very careful before going further with them.
The Secretary of State in stating his case was asked the question 'how evidence would be secured as to whether an alien should be granted a certificate. He said that the mounted police, the homestead inspectors and other persons would be in a position to secure that evidence. So far as the mounted police

are concerned, I would not object to them, but when we come down to the homestead inspectors and other persons I say we should draw the line night there. We are not told who the other persons are to be, but in my judgment the homestead inspectors have been responsible in the past for many hardships which were suffered by aliens coming to this country. In my judgment there are only two reasons which might be advanced for changing the present act, and the first of these is that the present act must be unworkable. I have not heard as yet any good argument advanced to show that the act is unworkable; certainly it is not so in the cities, where it is quite easy for any person to go before a judge and make application for a naturalization certificate. When we come to the outlying portions of the country there is a possibility that there may be some hardship in a few cases, but amendments might be made to provide for such cases. Since I have been a member of this house I have represented two large but very thinly populated constituencies, in which many people live forty or fifty miles from a railway centre, and I have never heard one complaint of inability to secure naturalization certificates. As I have already said, in some sections of the country with which I am not familiar there may be the possibility of hardship, but without tearing the act to pieces it should be possible to provide for such cases.
The only other reason which could be put forward for these amendments is that politicians desire to secure the naturalization of large numbers of aliens for the purpose of securing their votes. I would suggest to the house that it is not advisable even for political purposes to place ourselves in the position of allowing an alien to look lightly upon naturalization in this country. We hold Canadian citizenship in high regard because of the fact that we not only make a man a Canadian citizen; he also becomes a citizen of the British Empire, and to that extent we have a responsibility to other parts of the empire.
The Secretary of State has also made the excuse that some of the judges claim to be incapable of interpreting the Naturalization Act. If the judges are not capable of interpreting that act and of forming an opinion as to whether a person is fit to become a Canadian citizen and a British subject, how would the minister expect a mounted policeman, a homestead inspector or any other person to be able to interpret the act? I think that argument is very faulty, and it defeats the very object the Secretary of State has in view. I would also remind the committee that we have a special committee of

Naturalization Act
this house sitting to go into the question of whether the salaries of our judges should be increased, and I think probably the government are behind this proposal. This statement by the Secretary of State does not appeal to me as a very strong argument for increasing the salaries of our judges.
I am not going to take up the time of the committee further except to say a few words with regard to the amendments, the first of which improved the original amendment to a great extent; I refer to the provision for posting notices for sixty days. That removes some objections to the proposed amendments, but I should be much more satisfied if the Secretary of State would agree to an extension of that time to four or six months. Let us make this provision such that we can say in good faith that because of the time required for the posting of notices no political party can benefit by this act at election time. If we put it on that basis I think probably the house and the country will be more satisfied with the proposal than is the case at the present. Provision is also made for objections to such applications, but in this amendment the Secretary of State has not said where these objections are to be lodged. In my judgment that is a grave omission. Under the present act a person who objects to an application for naturalization can appear in court and present his objection before the judge and the person concerned. Therefore I think some provision should be made whereby persons objecting to a naturalization application should send their protests to the Secretary of State, where they will be given proper consideration.
The only other reference I wish to make is with regard to the three natural bom British subjects who are to give a certificate of character. I do not look upon that part of the section as being very strong; in fact it has an inherent weakness. If it is possible when these amendments are passed-if they are passed-for a political party to take advantage of the situation during election time, it is possible for a party to get as many British bom subjects as may be required to give certificates of character. Consequently that is not a very strong safeguard. I think the greatest safeguard we can have either now or in the future is to see that sufficient time elapses between the filing of the application and the final granting of the certificate so that no political party can take advantage of this act.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Before this bill passes I should like to make a few observations, although I do not intend to delay the committee very long. I think the government
and the Secretary of State are to be congratulated for bringing this bill 'before the house. I have lived in western Canada most of my life and have come in contact with a good many men from European countries. I have found that many of them have had difficulty in becoming British subjects, and to my mind this difficulty should be removed. If we are going to make it as hard as possible for a man to become a citizen of Canada I think our whole immigration policy will fall to pieces. In my opinion a man should be granted naturalization in Canada if he is physically and mentally fit, if he has passed the inspection of the Department of Immigration and if his character is good. I know of many cases in my own riding of men who have gone to a good deal of expense to appear before a county court judge in order to become naturalized, and in many instances where the report of the mounted police was good and where there was nothing in the world to prevent the applicant from becoming a Canadian citizen, naturalization was refused.


James Arthurs: By whom?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: By the county court
judge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I know it; I have seen the files myself, and they contained nothing which should prevent those men from becoming Canadian citizens. At the same time a county court judge, through his interpretation of the act perhaps, refused to recommend naturalization. Our friends on the opposite side seem to be in favour of trying to give the impression that a man from a foreign country is inferior to a man that is British born, with the object of trying to prevent him from becoming a Canadian citizen with the least difficulty.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend gave an
instance just now of a judge refusing Canadian citizenship to some man. Probably the judge refused him because he could not speak either of the two languages. My hon. friend said that if a man is physically fit and passes the immigration authorities he should be permitted to receive Canadian citizenship. Should not a man have a knowledge of the languages of our country to know something about the problems of our country?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am glad my hon. friend brought that up, because, in many of these cases, these men can speak just as good Eng-

Naturalization Act
lish as my friends over there. It probably just happened that the judge felt that way; that he had got out of the wrong side of the bed.


Mr.   IMACDONALD@Richmond: Well,
which side did you get out of?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I always get out of the right side, and get in the right side.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: My hon. friend the member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) just a few minutes ago said that he would not like to go back to the olden days when men were naturalized wholesale before an election. I do not want to go back to that state of things, but we have men in charge of the affairs of the country to-day who would not allow a thing of that kind.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will
permit me for just one minute, I should like to remind the member for Acadia that the days he spoke of were those-


Finlay MacDonald: You are too late; the gentleman from Acadia is not speaking.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We are in committee, Mr. Chairman. Those were the days when applications were heard only before the court; the government had nothing to do with them at all.


Robert Gardiner: On the occasion of which I spoke, the applications were never heard before a judge.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But the judges granted
the certificate. The government had nothing to do with it before 1914.


Robert Gardiner: They were never heard before a judge, that is all I can say.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: After these gentlemen
have made three of four speeches, may I be allowed to continue with mine? The hon. member for Acadia mentioned a little while ago that he would not like to go back to the state of things that existed during certain elections. I would not want to go back to that.


An hon. MEMBER:: The 1925 election?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am glad my hon. friend mentioned that. I will just give you an instance of a man who had been naturalized for thirty odd years; in 1917 he walked seven miles to cast his vote, and he could not vote. That is the state of things that I do not want

to go back to. The hon. member for Acadia mentioned, I say, that he would not like to go back to the old state of things, and I will put the mind of my hon. friend at peace by telling him just to look at the hon. Secretary of State, and examine him closely; I am sure that as long as he is at the helm there is no danger of things of that sort occurring, as they did in the olden days.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have practically finished what I wanted to say. We allow these people to come into this country; we spend money to bring them here, and as soon as possible, provided that they are physically and morally fit and have a knowledge of one or other of the languages, we should allow them to become Canadian citizens and assume the full responsibility attaching thereto. I will say this to my hon. friends if they will allow me-if they will only keep quiet for a few minutes; I did not interrupt them- what would we do during the harvest season, or during the whole season, if we did not have these men who came from the European countries? I am speaking from a practical knowledge of conditions in western Canada. How could we move our crops? How could we go on and build our public works and develop the whole country? How could we get our British citizens or our Canadian citizens to go on inferior lands and develop them to the extent that these men that came from these European countries develop them? It would be almost impossible. These men have been settled on inferior lands, as my friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) has mentioned, and have developed and improved and created beautiful farms for themselves, and they are a credit to this country. The government deserves all the credit for trying to make it as easy as possible for these men to become Canadian citizens, provided that they can comply with the language question, and are physically and morally fit.


Finlay MacDonald: And the political.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I only
desire to make a few observations in answer to my friend the Secretary of State. I think he is entirely wrong in one conclusion that he draws, and the language employed by Chief Justice Meredith, to which he referred the other day, abundantly supports the position that I wish to direct his attention to. The Naturalization Act, which was one of the statutes of this country prior to 1914, only conferred Canadian citizenship upon the applicant, My friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) in dealing With those who left this

Naturalization Act
country, dealing with the class of persons to whom I referred in my address the other day, overlooked the fact that we did not confer British citizenship, but only Canadian citizenship. When they got beyond the three mile limit they were Germans again, as they had originally been, because of the provision in the constitution of their own country. May I direct the attention of the Secretary of State to a matter which I think is of some considerable importance? As the law now stands, there are certain countries in Europe that provide for military service by their subjects, and they will not relinquish their hold over them, even though they come to this country and obtain British citizenship. This thing was considered as being quite serious, and it was deemed to be worthy of consideration on the part of the government, as to whether or not they would grant a naturalization certificate to an alien from any country that claimed the right to call its citizens up for military service, regardless of where they might reside. I remember that the French republic called up one of its citizens under very distressing circumstances. The German Empire did, and certainly the Japanese Empire at one time claimed the right to do so. Whether or not they are now doing so, I cannot state with authority.
After the imperial conference of 1911, the hon. gentleman who has just spoken must realize that we have a law throughout the empire, which was arrived at by agreement. One of the representatives at the empire conference in 1911 was the late Right Hon, Sir 'Wilfrid Laurier, who represented the Dominion of Canada. It is true that the statute that embodied the conclusion, to which my friend the Secretary of State referred this afternoon, was not enacted in this parliament until 1914, but the law was agreed to by the Liberal government of that day, by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues at the imperial conference of 1911. My friend the Secretary of State read the report of the committee on imperial naturalization. I think the chairman of that committee was Mr. Churchill, then the Home Secretary. I may be wrong as to that, but certainly Sir John Simon was one of the members of the committee, he then being, if my memory serves me, either the Solicitor General or the Attorney General. That was the basis of our present law. It was agreed to by the Dominion of Canada, represented by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. and one or two other Canadian statesmen. It was agreed to by Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Great Britain. We, therefore, have a common standard of citizenship. Any alien who desires to become a citizen of the British Empire, whether at 56103-175
the Home Office in London, or in South Africa, Australia or Canada, has to comply with the following four requirements: (a) residence; (b) character; (c) language, and (d) the intention to remain in the British dominions or in the service of the crown. Those were the four requirements, and those requirements you will find in the statutes of the dominions, and in the statutes of Great Britain. That being so, we enacted them in 1914 as a part of our law with respect to naturalization and we repealed the old act. The only question that remained was the determination by the Secretary of State how he would satisfy himself that these requirements had been met. My hon. friend the Secretary of State, this afternoon-and perhaps he was speaking hurriedly-left the impression that as the law now stands, a judge may in some sense control the action of the Secretary of State. That is not so. I ventured to correct him and I now desire to point to the judgement of Mir. Justice Meredith lest, perad-venture, the minister would not regard my statement as being at all important. These are the words of Mr. Justice Meredith:
The judges, courts and authorities, or persons mentioned in section 22 have now no power to grant naturalization. They have the power and duty to hear and adjudicate upon applications for naturalization conferred on them; but their decision in favour of applicants may in the "absolute discretion" of the Secretary of State be in effect overruled in a refusal to issue a certificate of naturalization.
Whilst, on the other hand there does not appear to be anything in the way of an overruling in effect by him of a judge's or court's decision against an applicant by the simple process of granting another application to him directly under section 4. Nor does there seem to be anything to prevent an applicant, whose application has failed when made to a judge or court or authority or person, applying again and again to other judges, courts, authorities or persons; subsection 2 of section 2 of the act does not seem, directly or indirectly, to create a local jurisdiction.
That was the point I was endeavouring to make to the Secretary of State in the afternoon. Further down in the judgment these words will be found:
It is not a question of law, nor one of mere commonsense; it is really a question of policy of the country in which naturalization is sought:	and as this Dominion has put the
matter so completely in the discretion of its Secretary of State; sections 4 and 27 of the act, it seemed to me both natural and proper to look to him for knowledge; but so far that looking by me has been in vain.
That was the reference to which I was directing the attention of the Secretary of State this afternoon. The judge continues:
Nor can I find anything that has been said or done by any other judge or any court, authority or person throwing light on the subject, helpful to me.

Naturalization Act

Therefore Chief Justice Meredith was of opinion that the duties cast upon the judge were merely those of inquiry and not judicial in any respect. What he did was to report his findings, such as they might be, as to whether or not the individual who came before him was a fit and proper person to have citizenship conferred upon him. Chief Justice Meredith made it perfectly clear that the absolute discretion in subsection 3 of section 4, together with the absolute discretion mentioned in the other section, was the discretion that touched the question of high state policy: Shall a man become a British subject? The Minister of External Affairs might, for instance, conclude that there were circumstances which the report of the judge did not disclose and which had not been ascertained by him, constituting high reasons of state why the Secretary of State should not grant citizenship Mr. Churchill made that perfectly clear as did Sir John Simon and I read their statements in the first observations I made to the house with respect to the matter.
It must be conceded that the question of the grant of citizenship is not the light matter that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) has mentioned. It is a matter of high government policy in some instances and all governments have claimed the right to determine what person shall and under what conditions he shall become their subject. The law being as I said of universal application, all self-governing communities in the empire have placed upon t'heir secretaries of state that absolute discretion with respect to citizenship that is the attribute perhaps not of nationhood but at least of the right to determine who shall become citizens, in this instance, of the empire.
The measure as brought in by the Secretary of State repealed all the sections dealing with judicial inquiry, notices and matters of that kind. We submitted to him, I think, courteously, that as he had repealed those sections we had a right to ask what inquiry he proposed to substitute in their stead. We asked that time and again. He said: a mounted policeman, a homestead inspector. We asked him for others in order that we might know who were to make these inquiries. Then we went a step further. We also dealt with the question of notice, and the Secretary of State brought in an amendment to his bill providing that notice should be given through posting the applications in the post offices. Wo then ventured to point out that that conceded our claim that the regulations should
FM>. Bennett.]
be statutory and not the mere whim or caprice of the minister. Since he conceded that we were sound in that respect I suggested, and in fact all the speakers on this side of the house suggested to him that we should follow that up by determining by whom and where the inquiry was to be made whether or not the applicant for citizenship had complied with the requirements I mentioned, namely, residence, character, language and intention. He did not give us a satisfactory answer-I say that with all respect- and I think the hon. member for Marquette and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who have intimated that the bill in its first form was not acceptable to them, perhaps had quite as much to do with the ultimate result as had those on this side who protested against the measure. At any rate we have some satisfaction in knowing our previous remarks in that regard have commended themselves to his serious consideration. What happened? The committee will recall that the other day the minister dwelt strongly upon the necessity of having uniformity in the administration of the law. Does he realize that the judgment of Chief Justice Meredith to which he referred contains these words:
And it is of the utmost importance that the law should be administered evenly: that the country should not be open to the reproach: Your laws are uneven.
That is the point made by my friend the Secretary of State. He spoke of uniformity, and although judicial discretion may not be uniformly exercised, as we all know, a judicial discretion is so hemmed about by, so surrounded with safeguards, that in the main it may be said to be reasonably uniform in every part of the country. What have we now? The amendment submitted to the committee this afternoon provides what? That an applicant for a certificate of naturalization shall produce to the minister certificates of character and of adequate knowledge of the English or the French language from three natural born British subjects, two of whom are householders and one of whom is a justice of the peace. I ask this committee: What sort of uniformity will that ensure? Two householders and a justice of the peace in Alberta, two householders and a justice of the peace in Cape Breton determine two questions, namely, character and adequate knowledge of English or French-do you think their judgment will be uniform? Do you think their discretion will be uniform? Do you think it will be, as Chief Justice Meredith said, an even administration of the law? It seems to me it is somewhat

Naturalization Act
ridiculous that for a judicial discretion surrounded by the safeguards that surround all judges with the great traditions behind them, you are going to substitute in every part of the country a different discretion. In one little community of a hundred people you will find a discretion exercised by three people saying that a man's knowledge of language is adequate. In another community they may be more exacting and find that the man's knowledge is inadequate, and in another they may not be able to decide on the question. Thus within a radius of fifty miles you may have three distinct views with respect to character and adequate knowledge of English or French. Is that the sort of thing w,e want? Chief Justice Meredith says no, and the minister brought his measure into the house demanding uniformity. This is how we are going to secure it and surely that cannot be sound. That is our position with respect to the matter.
Let me go a step further. The first amendment dealt with the notice and it says:	The
notice must be posted in the post office nearest to where the man is. Who is going to determine that and how is it to be determined? Supposing, as a matter of fact, a mistake is made and the notice is sent to a post office which is not the nearest to the applicant. The words are: "the post office nearest to the residence of the applicant."	In some of the small communities there will be a difficulty with respect to whether he resides within eight miles of this office or within ten miles of that.
Then there is rural mail delivery. How about that? All these are questions that must be answered because they are practical questions. They are not manufactured for the occasion; they are no,t difficulties that we are making. I assure the committee, although I judge from the observations made to-day that the attitude I am taking is one that is severely censured by hon. gentlemen opposite, that I have no interest in the matter other than to see put upon the statute books a law that is workable and one that will reflect the genius of the Canadian people wiith respect to one of the most serious matters with which we can deal. I have no personal interest in the matter beyond the reasons I have suggested. I can stand it if the committee can, but I have given a great deal of attention to the matter during the thirty years I have been in western Canada, and the reasons given by the hon. member for Acadia were responsible for bringing my attention to it in the first place.
It is provided that the notice must be put up in the nearest post office. The minister must send the notice of the application to the postmaster at the nearest post office, and let me say that there is a provision about-posting notices in the Postal Act which I think will require to be dealt with, and then:
Such postmaster shall thereupon post such notice in a prominent place in the said post office and advise the minister thereof. Such posting shall be made at least sixty days before the issue of certificate of naturalization.
Then look at the next section: It provides:
An applicant for a certificate of naturalization under subsection three of section four of this act shall advertise in a newspaper published at or nearest to his place of residence, in either the English or French language, in the prescribed form, his intention to apply, and shall produce to the minister a copy of the newspaper containing the said advertisement.
How many times is that advertisement to appear? The South African statute provides that it shall be published in the Gazette. How many times does it appear? That is the first question I ask. The next question is this: How long before the application is heard is the advertisement to appear? It may be the day before, and it would be complying with the section if it was published in the English language in Gaspe. It might not be understood by anybody in the community.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is wrong. In Gaspe everybody understands English.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will take another part of Cianada. I selected Gaspe just because the name happened to occur to me. There must be communities in this country where the knowledge of English is very limited; we will put it that way.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I congratulate my hon. friend because-


Lucien Cannon: It is legal to publish this notice in either language in our province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that, and the
point I am making is this: there is nothing to say that the publication of the notice shall not be in English in a French community or in French in an English community. What is more, if it is published in the foreign language papers in either English or French it would be complying with the section. But the next practical difficulty to which I was drawing attention was this: How long is the advertisement to be published before a oer-tificalte is granted? The day before? The week before? How many days before?


Lucien Cannon: Before what?
Naturalization Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the certificate is granted.


Lucien Cannon: Notice of his intention to apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. To-day is the seventh. He may put the advertisement in the newspaper to-day, and in the meantime notice of his intention to apply has been running, and his application is considered.


Lucien Cannon: He has to send a copy of the paper with his application.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not with his application.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is what it says:
-shall advertise in a newspaper. . . his intention to apply, and shall produce to the minister a copy of the newspaper containing the said advertisement.
But not with the application. It does not say so.


Lucien Cannon: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the
section says, and no court would so interpret it.
It goes a step further. You have an advertisement to be published in a newspaper and inserted a number of times thalt is not indicated, but it must be at least once. It contains the statement of the applicant's intention to apply on a date not mentioned. Then follows the inquiry, and for the judges of this country who have, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, ever since we have had a naturalization law, made this inquiry, you are substituting an inquiry that will be as different as the applications themselves. Those who are conducting the inquiry must satisfy themselves as to the character of the applicant and if he has an adequate knowledge of English or French, and then the. justice of the peace comes in. In South Africa they have a provision with respect to that in practically the same terms as here, but for the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the hon. member for Fort William the other day, conditions in that country are so vastly different from what they are here because the immigrants that go to that country are not from every other part of the world, as is the condition here. That is the situation we have to deal with.
I might make this further observation, which is quite within the mark. It is not the intention on the part of anybody connected with this committee on either side of the house, dealing with a first rate problem of domestic
l Mr Cannon.]
affairs, to say that we are going to make naturalization easy or difficult. The hon. member for Provencher, who has just taken his seat, must realize that this parliament is not making naturalization easy or difficult. He talks about making it easy. This is a standard citizenship we are dealing with which the hon. gentleman's great leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, assisted in fixing at the imperial conference of 1911, and it is not competent for us to change it unless we change the whole bargain under which British citizenship is granted.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: My idea was simply
this, to make it as easy as possible, and to avoid the financial difficulties of a lot of these men. That is the principle I am talking about.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a fair statement.
If the hon. gentleman says he is only dealing with the question of procedure, we accept the principle; and let me point out, which I neglected to do the other day, that a provision now exists in the act whereby in exceptional cases the applicant need not go to the court at all.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then why not take it
all out of the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the reason that the
exception proves the necessity for the rule. Here is the exception. Section 25 says:
The applicant shall produce to the court such evidence that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this act, as the court may require, and shall also personally appear before the court for examination unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that he is prevented from so appearing by some good and sufficient cause.
In other words, if the distance is so great and the conditions, financial and otherwise, so difficult that the applicant cannot overcome them, here is the exception that meets that difficult case. Where such conditions prevail, where hardship would be involved, this section could be availed of, if the evidence is ample, and very often the evidence of the policeman who is making the patrol, and usually comes into the court, would satisfy the judge that the man could not be there himself. He could satisfy the court as to identity, character and knowledge of language, and the case would be disposed of. But these are the exceptional cases. These are the cases in which the operation of the law in all its stringency has been suspended in order to meet the difficulties of the case mentioned.
Under these circumstances, I can only unite my voice with that of the hon. member for

Naturalization Act
Acadia and say that a case has not been made out for changing this law. If you feel that that is not sufficiently strong, there is no reason why this parliament should not provide for a case of that character, a case of hardship, by dealing with it directly.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Who is to establish hardship?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have never seen judges unwilling to admit hardship if it is placed before them by anybody. Usually the policeman himself would be willing to do it, or the applicant could send a letter to the judge. I must say that I was greatly amazed when the hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred to an expense of $200 as being necessary to get naturalization papers. It is the most astounding information I have ever heard, because, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no formality in my part of the country. The clerk's offices are usually well known in western Canada. The applicants for naturalization write to the clerk of the court at Calgary or Edmonton for application forms. They are sent out by the next mail. The applicants fill out the forms, or are assisted to do so, return them to the court house, and the statutory notices are posted. I think some of my friends must have seen this method of dealing with applications for naturalization. Then in Alberta the courts are held more frequently throughout the country than they are in the other provinces judging from what has been said in the course of this discussion. As I have pointed out, if the applicant's financial resources or his condition of health do not permit his attendance at the court, the provincial police go out on patrol, visit the man and report on his qualifications. In our country a judge usually examines an applicant under oath if he is able to attend court. But in this instance we will assume the applicant could not attend but wrote a letter to the judge. In England a person would be admonished for doing this, but under our democratic system it is not unusual in most of the western provinces for men to write direct to the judges. I have seen many such communications. The matter is dealt with in that way. My friend from Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) has proved the very case that we have been endeavouring to make out. The judge may recommend that the man be not granted a naturalization certificate; the Secretary of State has power to grant such certificate.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: You admit that the
Secretary of State has the right to grant a certificate of naturalization?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then why go to the court at all?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the question I
did endeavour to answer. The statute says that the Minister of State must be satisfied, and he grants the certificate in his unfettered discretion. But the Secretary of State cannot personally go out north of Calgary to examine the applicant, so he has to get the information some other way, that is, by referring the matter to the judge, and the judge makes his report. But the Secretary of State is not bound to follow that report, for he himself may be satisfied that for other reasons, for instance, as a high act of state, it is advisable to grant naturalization, and he does so.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Suppose the judge did
not recommend naturalization, and the Secretary of State issued a certificate, as you say he has the power to do, what is the good of the judge's inquiry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My point is this, Mr. Chairman, that while the language of the statute is, as Chief Justice Meredith says, to vest complete discretion in the minister, there is no rule stated by which to determine just what the character and measure of the judge's inquiry should be. Chief Justice Meredith said that he looked to the Secretary of State for guidance and did not receive it. My hon. friend's question is:	Why have an inquiry by the judge if the Secretary of State can grant naturalization against the judge's adverse report? But the reason for the inquiry is to be found in the exercise by the Secretary of State of what we say is a sound discretion based on a knowledge of the facts.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But he can ignore the
judge's finding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to waste time in legal argument. The Secretary of State read from the report of the 1911 conference on naturalization. The whole point is that the granting of letters of naturalization is in a large sense a political act, and is done by the government as such, and the Secretary of State exercises that power. If the government sees fit to naturalize a person within the statute, that is, a person having good character and an adequate knowledge of English or French, the Secretary of State himself must be satisfied on these points. That is the position, as pointed out by Mr. Churchill and Sir John Simon at the naturalization conference.

Naturalization Act
Now that the government has made these amendments, I find there is something further that I intended to state the other day. I think those aliens who are under obligation to return to their native country for military service can never be taken to be persons who should come within the provisions of the section, because they cannot be said to be persons intending to reside in the British dominions. Leaving that out, the details I have mentioned-the difficulties with respect to the time in which the advertisement is to appear, the number of occasions-all those matters but indicate how desirable it is that these amendments should be studied from every standpoint. I submit that these amendments have been hurriedly prepared and give statutory form to conditions which might merely have been regulations of the governor in council. Since we are now going to impose them by statute, as we suggested the other day, I cannot but think their purposes would be best served by the government giving this matter that attention to detail which is so essential to clearly establish the position. In other words, the government should let this matter stand until another session in order that it may receive the attention which presumably the government desires to give to it. But if the government has made up its mind to press the bill through, I can only say once again that we protest against the inadequacy of these sections for the reasons mentioned by Chief Justice Meredith and for the reasons given by the Secretary of State himself. These sections establish absolute confusion and not uniformity; they establish a different form or condition from one end of Canada to the other, and place in the hands of three citizens-one is now to be a justice of the peace, but not a natural-bom British subject, and the other two may be illiterate persons without any knowledge of English or French, and possibly, though not necessarily, bitter partisans at elections-the power to say whether or not the applicant has satisfied them on these points. The time specified is wholly inadequate to enable proper inquiries to be made, and there is no provision to permit any check in the event of the application being protested.
From what has been said in this house it is clear that it would have been better for us in days gone by-leaving out political considerations entirely-to have exercised a greater measure of attention and care than we did in the long years that I hope are not entirely forgotten. There has been im-
I Mr. Bennett.]
posed upon this country in the conduct of all its business an intolerable burden of expense by reason of there having been noncompliance with conditions which have since been made the basis of our Naturalization Act. Those conditions, so far as Canada is concerned, are attributable to the efforts of Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, when the bill was brought down by Mr. Doherty, congratulated him and, as I read the other day, intimated that it was something for which he had striven over a long period of years. For these reasons we protest against this measure being rushed into law under the circumstances I have indicated. That is all I can usefully add to this discussion and to the points that were made by the Secretary of State this afternoon.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The section provides for at least sixty days. Would this prevent the Secretary of State making it ninety days?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; he might in his discretion, but it must be at least sixty days. That is the construction to be placed upon the language.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, my purpose in rising is not to draw attention to any points of difference between my hon. friend and myself, so much as to stress the similarity, if not the identity, of view which we entertain on some of the essential features of this measure. In the first place, I agree entirely with the leader of the opposition that we cannot view with too much regard for its importance the question of citizenship within our own country and that larger citizenship which we enjoy within the British Empire. As my hon. friend has said, prior to 1914 the citizenship that was conferred through naturalization was Dominion citizenship; it is now a citizenship which applies to the whole of the British Empire. That being the case, the question that naturally suggests itself to one's mind is, what are the requirements respecting naturalization in other parts of the British Empire? Were the government seeking to bring in a measure which would make it easier for a man to become a naturalized British subject in Canada than, for example, he can become in one of the other dominions or in the British isles, I think we might be open to the criticism that in the circumstances we are making naturalization too easy. But if, on the other hand, the requirements of our act with respect to citizenship are in all particulars the equivalent of the requirements in other parts of the British Empire, including the mother country, then I submit we have advanced a very strong reason why this bill should pass this parlia-

Naturalization Act
ment; otherwise we declare to the rest of the world that while a man can receive naturalization as a British subject in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland and the British isles, he cannot receive naturalization in Canada on like terms and conditions. That,
I say, would be a great misfortune; and it is to avoid discrimination against our own Dominion in that particular that the government in this measure has sought to lay down, as requirements for naturalization in Canada, the same or more rigid requirements than those of the other dominions or of Great Britain itfelf. If the committee appreciates that fact, which is fundamental and allimportant, it will see a strong reason why further exception should not be taken to the bill.
My hon. friend (iMr. Bennett) declares that the legislation has been hastily conceived in the form in which it is being introduced1. The Secretary of State made it quite clear, in his rmarks on the first day on which the measure was introduced, that citizenship would be granted in accordance not only with the expressed terms of the statute, but in accordance with regulations fixed by the Department of the Secretary of State, and which were, as he then indicated, precisely those which, in addition to others, are the ones we are to-day making a part of the statute. In the course of the discussion in the committee it became apparent that there was force in the argument that essential requirements ought to be made a part of the statute; and the Secretary of State, recognizing that contention, comes frankly before the committee and says, "I now propose to make, as part of the statute, requirements which otherwise, though quite as important and effective in the long run as regulations, would have appeared only in that form." We are therefore now making a part of the statute what originally were intended to be among the regulations. So that there has been no haste in the conception of what is now brought forward; the difference between the government and the opposition is wholly one of procedure.
This brings me to the other point of agreement between the leader of the opposition and the government. The leader of the opposition has pointed out that the question of naturalization is necessarily a matter of high government policy, and that in the last analysis the Secretary of State in his discretion must grant the naturalization certificate. The responsibility being on the government, it seems to me only right that the government should adopt its own method of securing such information as it needs to protect it in the exercise of
that responsibility. If we are going to adhere to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility then, I submit, it is much more logical to place upon the minister the whole responsibility, allowing him the means which he believes to be most effective in order to ensure the results he desires to bring about, than to part with that responsibility to an individual or body not answerable to parliament, and to leave the discretion to someone altogether beyond the control of this house. The minister must meet parliament each session; he is responsible for all cases of naturalization where certificates have been granted by him. As was pointed out the other day, any hon. member can call at any moment for the file relating to any single citizen naturalized, and the minister must bear the responsibility for what the file discloses. I contend therefore, the responsibility being on the minister, that he should have an opportunity of devising the machinery which he believes would be most effective in enabling him to discharge his duty to parliament and to the country.
May I say further, after listening to the discussion and drawing from it the conclusions that are obvious with respect to the difficulties in regard to naturalization, that it would appear that members on one side of the house have been thinking largely of naturalization in the cities and in the larger towns, while members on the other side, to a greater extent perhaps, have been concerned with the difficulties in respect of naturalization in the rural and in the less thickly settled parts of the country. When reference is made to members of the judiciary as individuals before whom applicants shall appear, it must be apparent at once that the person about to be naturalized, if he resides in a city or in a town, is in a much more fortunate position than the man who has gone to some part of the Dominion as yet not thickly populated, or not settled at all, and has there hewn out a home for himself, and become a citizen of the country by virtue of years of labour upon the soil. I submit that, as between the two, if we were to choose which type in the long run was likely to make the better citizen, all of us, regardless of whether we live in the city or in the country, would say that the man who had made his home on the land was much more likely to be the type of citizen possessing the merits and the qualifications which we wish to see in one enjoying the privileges of citizenship than the foreign-born resident of a large city who possesses no property. I do not think there would be any doubt that we should choose him rather than the man in the city or the town. And yet, by the law as it stands
Naturalization Act

to-day, those men who have made their homes in the unsettled parts of Canada and who have contributed towards the settlement of those sparsely settled areas, find it infinitely more difficult after five years of effort to become citizens of the Dominion, than do the men who happen to be in a large city like Montreal or Toronto. When that fact is taken into consideration members of the committee will, I think, see the wisdom of a measure which seeks to make it possible for the man who has settled in the rural parts of the country and possesses the necessary qualifications to obtain his naturalization with as little additional cost and as little additional effort as may be necessary.
There is no difference between the opposition and the government as to the requirements of naturalization; residence, character, language and intention: these, we are all agreed, are the essential requirements. But one point of difference that seems to arise between us is as to whether it shall be made easy or difficult for the applicant possessing these qualifications, to become naturalized. The contention of the government is that if the qualifications are there it ought not to be made as difficult as possible for the applicant to become naturalized; it ought to be made comparatively easy. If the qualifications are not there then certainly naturalization should be made not only difficult but impossible. But, I ask hon. members, bearing in mind what I have said in regard to the classes to whom naturalization is granted: Who are in a better position to know whether those persons settled in rural parts are likely to be worthy of citizenship than their neighbours who are householders, who have lived beside them, who know them, who have watched them year in, year out over a period of five years? It is not to be forgotten that those who are entitled to apply for naturalization are only individuals who have been five years in the country, and men who are householders and natural born British subsubjects are going to put their names to certificates of such importance unless they are pretty sure of the statements they are making.
Just here I should like to refer to the words of the hon. member for Acadia. As he was speaking it seemed to me that he had a fear that this right of naturalization would be exercised by one political party to the disadvantage of the other. I would point out to him that under the measure as it stands, the opportunities are the same for both or rather for all political parties; there is no advantage given to one side or to one

political party more than to another in requiring that whoever vouches for the character and qualifications of the individual applicant shall be a person such as is defined in the statute.' It is only conveying a false impression to seek to have it appear, whether intentionally or otherwise, that in this matter the administration is in some particular interested in gaining an advantage to itself. The government are seeking to establish qualifications which will apply to everyone in this country regardless of his political leanings, and to give every class an equal chance under the law.
Those I think are the points which I wish to stress at this moment. The whole matter comes* down to a question of trying to find, as nearly as a government can find it, the happy mean between two extremes; the one extreme which will make it difficult for the man who possesses the necessary qualifications to become naturalized, and the other extreme which would make it easy for a man who does not possess in full measure the qualifications to become a Canadian citizen. In taking the qualifications which are required in other parts of the Brtish Empire, adding those obligations which are imposed1 by statute in other parts of the empire and making these a part .of the statute of our own land we have gone in this matter as far as it is possible for an administration to go which wishes to be perfectly impartial and to lean in favour neither to the one side nor to the other.


Mr. KELLNER:: Representing a rural
constituency which is possibly one of the largest in Canada, I wish to state definitely that I have never heard a single complaint against the present Naturalization Act, and I cannot see why anyone should have to go to an expense of $25 or more to become naturalized. The only sum mentioned in the act is the payment of $5 for the application. I do not see that this scheme is going to be any mere workable; it seems to me that you are only substituting the mounted police or the homestead inspectors for the judge. In the province of Alberta mounted police are practically things of the past; we have a few of them but they are not on active duty and do not travel around the country to any great extent. There are some districts where homestead inspectors may be found, but there are other districts where they are few and far between. If a man went out to-day to look for a mounted policeman or a homestead inspector in order to make his application for naturalization, it would probably take him quite a long time to find one. I believe you would have to include some of the other

Naturalization Act
inspectors who have been mentioned, and I suppose it would be quite appropriate to include an egg inspector.
I do not think there can be any question but that this act has political possibilities, and everyone who has lived in the west for any length of time knows that the old act was used in that way. I know, and I am satisfied that mj' colleagues also know, of people who were naturalized and who did not know they were naturalized until they received their papers. In one election I recall a man telling me that one of the election workers asked him to vote. He said, "I cannot vote; I have not been naturalized yet", but the election worker said, "Yes, you have; I have your certificate right in my pocket."
I would like to refer for a moment to this provision under which three natural born British citizens must certify to the character of the applicant, and I just want to say a word on the way the words "natural bom British citizens" are used. Surely it would be better to say, "native born"; I think nearly all of them are natural born, so it seems to me that the minister is using a term which does not cover what he means. The main point which strikes me, however, is this: Supposing these natural born or native born Britishers come to this country this week; is there anything in the act to preclude them from giving certificates to one making application for naturalization next week? We know that we get at least an occasional immigrant from England whom we have to send back, and I do not see why such a man could not come out to Canada this week, establish a home, sign his certificate next week for some one making a naturalization application, and still remain within the act. If you are going to have that section in the act it seems to me that the British citizen should be compelled to establish a residence in Canada of at least one or two years; certainly he could not form any very definite conclusion as to the character of the individual to whom he gave a certificate otherwise. In my humble opinion I think the government are spoiling a reasonably good act and giving us what is likely to be an exceedingly poor one.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I should like to add a word or two to this discussion, and I wish to refer first to the reference made by the Prime Minister to Australia and New Zealand. I submit that the situation existing in those countries, where over 90 per cent of the population is of one race and one language, is vastly different from the situation which exists in Canada. We are bringing to this country people from all parts of the world,
people of different nationalities, speaking different languages, and I submit that we should have the most systematic and rigorous control by the native born citizens of the two principal races in Canada if we are ever to have a semblance of national unity in this country. In my judgment we should not make the mistake of relaxing or loosening our restrictions with regard to the granting of naturalization certificates; on the contrary, in my humble judgment we should tighten up the regulations.
I should like to submit this point, which seems ho me worthy of consideration:	We
have an example just across the line, in the United States of America. That country was referred to Iby the hon. member for Stanstead, who stated that they had opened their doors to countless millions iof immigrants. That is very true. In the last century some 36,000,000 foreigners immigrated into the United States. In the tw-emty years subsequent to 1882 there was a flood-tide of immigration inito that country; they were receiving from three-quarters of a million to a million per year. In 1914, immigration into that country totalled 1,258,000; in 1921, it was as high as 805,000. Now, what was the course taken by our neighbours to the south? I venture to state that in the past they have been stricter and more rigorous in regard to granting naturalization certificates than we have in Canada. Yet, notwithstanding all that, we find the United States passing perhaps the most drastic immigration law that ever was passed by any country on the face of the earth.
I should like to submit to you a sentence from the message of President Coolidge to congress in December, 1923, when he advocated a stricter numerical restriction, based on the census previous to 1910. The first quota system adopted by the United States was based on the census of 1910, the 3 per cent quota. President Coolidge advocated going farther than that, and in his message he used these words:
America should be kept for Americans. To obtain this we can admit only those whom we can assimilate, viz., those whose background, traditions, etc., are similar to ours, and those who come for the purpose of making America their home and who will be partakers of the American spirit.
Now, Mr. Chairman, under the quota system of the United States, based on the census of 1910, they permitted about 360,000 to come in from foreign countries. I do noit include in that number those from Canada or Mexico. Under the quota system later adopted, on the basis of the census of 1890, the 2 per cent
Naturalization Act

quota, they cut that almost exactly in half. Again I am excluding immigrants coming from Mexico and from Canada. What was the object of the United States in making that change? After a very careful study of the whole situation they did that for the express purpose of eliminating as far as possible immigrants from continental Europe, or, at least, from southern and southeastern Europe. Under the new plan, the quota from Engtond, Germany, and most of the northern European countries was practically not affected by the change from the 3 per cent to the 2 per cent quota on the basis of the two different years.
Let us see how it affected the others. I refer to this because I think it has a very direct application to this proposed law, which, I submit, will affect more particularly those from the southern and southeastern part of Europe than those from the northern part of Europe, the Scandinavian countries and Germany. Let us see how that dhange affected the situation in the United States. It reduced Austrian immigration from 7,451 down to 1,090-7,451 under the quota system of 3 per cent, based on the census of 1910, and 1,090 on the quota system of 2 per cent, based on the census of 1890.


Charles Avery Dunning: The change in boundary would have something to do with that.


John Wesley Edwards: Possibly it had. As I will give you other nations, I think it will include them all, even under the changed boundaries. For Czechoslovakia the number was reduced from 14,557 to 1,973; Greece, from 3,294 bo 135; Hungary, from 5,638 to 588; Italy, from 42,057 to 4,689, Poland, from 21,076 to 8,972; Roumania, from 7,419 to 731; Russia, from 21,613 to 1,892; Turkey, from 2,388 to 123; and Jugoslavia, 6,426 to 835.
The experience of the United States, our next door neighbour, was that at one time they threw their doors absolutely wide open to the world, inviting people to come in from all parts of the world. That great country looked over the past legislation which it had on its books in regard to immigration and considered what was necessary as to naturalization, and after that they adopted the most drastic and stringent laws in order to protect their country from the influence of those whom it would be somewhat difficult to Americanize. They adopted the most drastic law that was ever adopted in any country in the world. And now, in their experience, surely we have a lesson from which we can learn something. I submit, having

regard to the attitude of our great neighbour, that this is not the time in the history of Canada to relax our vigilance, to loosen up on our restriction, and make it a mere matter of form for the strangers within our gates to become Canadian citizens.
We have the proof of it right on the floor of this house, in that hon. gentlemen in this chamber who have come from different countries of the world have made good in Canada and are a credit to the house and to the Dominion. There are thousands and tens of thousands of such citizens in the west, and I firmly believe that any man who has lived in Canada for five years, no matter from what country he has come, and more especially the man who has lived in the country and acquired some land which he can call his own, if he is worth his salt and is worth naturalizing, will not raise any quibble in regard to a little trouble in going to get his naturalization papers. I submit, with all confidence, that the man who will quibble about a little inconvenience to himself, even to a little outlay of money, in rounding out his citizenship, is not the man we want. If he is a settler desiring to become a citizen of Canada, and if he is the right kind of man, he will approach these difficulties, such as they are, with pleasure. If a man will harp and quibble about a little inconvenience to himself and a little outlay of money in order to become a citzen of Canada, it is better for Canada if he never takes out his citizenship papers at all. I submit that those people from foreign countries who do not know a word of English or French, who find great difficulty in acquiring either of these languages; those citizens who have settled in the back parts of the country and who will be put to great inconvenience in getting their papers- those citizens will, I believe, look back on their experiences and will compare their pioneering years in Canada with the best years which they have had in the country of their birth, and they will feel they are so much better off in the land of their adoption than in the land of their birth that they will be glad to crown their ownership of property in this country with the dignity of being Canadian citizens.
Some say that in some cases people living in outside districts are put to considerable inconvenience in travelling long distances and are also put to some expense in order to acquire citizenship. Does that not apply to everything else? Men who live in outlying districts and who have to attend court on some matter or another are put to greater inconvenience than are men who live next

Naturalization Act
door to the court house. The man who lives in an outlying district must in everything be put- to a certain inconvenience and trouble in travelling long distances and he cannot do that without incurring some expense. In all other matters that pertain to life and his activities as a citizen, he will be told at once: Well, you live some distance away from the local seat of government in your community; that happens to be your position and you are subject to inconvenience because of that fact; you must submit to that. We cannot all live in the same place. But in regard to the acquisition of the right of citizenship in Canada, the matter of inconvenience has to be raised. Hon. gentlemen have cited cases of men who live fifty miles, a hundred miles or more away from a court and who have to travel those distances in order to secure their papers. These are isolated cases. Should the whole law of the country be governed by the experience of two or three or half a dozen men who happen to live in isolated communities? Surely the law can be framed in such a way that if you have ten, twelve or fifteen people who want to take out naturalization papers and who live fifty or seventy-five miles away from the court, the court will travel those fifty or seventy-five miles in order to meet those people. The only reason that occurs to me why the government should substitute for the judges of the land, whose very position lends a dignity to the acquisition of naturalization papers, homestead inspectors or mounted policemen or some other agents of the Secretary of State is that the government may make political capital out of that change.


John Frederick Johnston: The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I desire to say that the
government is quite willing to approve the amendment. The desire of the government is to see that the certificates accompanying an application are made by persons who may be relied upon. I am quite satisfied, if the committee is, that a justice of the peace would m all cases be a desirable person to submit a certificate.


Robert James Manion: There was another suggestion which I made this afternoon. I was supported in it by the leader of the Progressive party, the hon, member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), the leader of the opposition and various other speakers, and
with the attitude taken by the minister and that taken by the Prime Minister it seems a most reasonable suggestion, namely, the four-month instead of the two-month period.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The subamendment is
now before the committee. The question of delay comes in another part of the amendment.


Robert James Manion: I think the amendment
of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni comes in at the tail end of the bill. This is in the fifteenth line, I notice.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But the chairman has just called the amendment and perhaps it might be pronounced upon first.


John Arthur Clark: Has it been suggested to the minister that there are in this country justices of the peace who cannot speak either English or French?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am not aware of the fact. I desire to add this, that these are the minimum statutory safeguards. The Secretary of State will in all cases be at liberty by inquiry or otherwise to add to the statutory safeguards.


John Arthur Clark: If the amendment carries,
the justice of the peace passing upon the qualifications of an applicant may be an immigrant, foreign-born, and he may not himself have an adequate knowledge of the French or the English language.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not believe so. If he has been properly naturalized and passed upon by the court when he was naturalized, he would have the knowledge.
Mr. 'CLARK:	Surely by now the minister
knows that thousands of men were improperly naturalized in this country before the safeguards were imposed under the present act of having applicants come before a judge. Instances have been given in the house of literally hundreds being naturalized for election purposes. Many of those never could speak English or French.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Where are they?


John Arthur Clark: My hon. friends know perfectly well where they are.
'Mr. McPHEE: In what part of Canada?


John Arthur Clark: They are all over Canada.
I do not know of one province where this has not happened. I suggest very seriously that this is not limited to applicants for naturali-
Naturalization Act

zation or to those who have been naturalized, but we have actually in this country justices of the peace who have not an adequate knowledge of either the English of the French language.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Name the province.


Mr. McPHEE:: Name one man in Canada.


John Arthur Clark: My hon. friends need not be ridiculous in this. I am making a statement and I need not name any one individual. I know justices of the peace who are not educated men, who are not fit and competent to judge whether a man has an adequate knowledge of the English or the French language and whether or not he is a fit and proper person to be naturalized.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Does the hon. member
know one man who is a justice of the peace who cannot speak English or French?


John Arthur Clark: I know justices of the peace who have not an adequate knowledge of the English or the French language.


Leland Payson Bancroft: The hon. member said
that they could not speak English or French.


John Arthur Clark: I did not. I said that it
has been seriously suggested to me-and I believe it is true-that there are in this country justices of the peace who are not native-born Canadians-


Leland Payson Bancroft: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: -who are immigrants, and I firmly believe there are many of them who have not an adequate knowledge of the English or the French language. Those are the men that the minister now suggests he is willing should pass upon applications for naturalization. I was opposed to the bill as introduced, but I am more than ever opposed to it as the minister now proposes it should pass. It seems to me a preposterous thing that the minister should suggest taking any two native born Canadians that you may find willing to certify, and then take a justice of the peace not bom in this country who will in all probability charge a fee for his certificate. My hon. friend shakes his head. I feel certain that he will. You will find all over Canada that a fee will be charged by a justice of the peace who puts his name to the certificate, and that will be another scandal. If the minister is serious when he intimates that he does not believe that this will be done, he should make it an offence in the act itself if a fee is charged by a justice of the peace. It is all nonsense to suggest that a justice of

the peace is a fit and competent person to pass on these applications. The judiciary of this country has proven itself to be above suspicion in these things, and if there is any difficulty in the administration of the law as it now stands, the Secretary of State can amend the present act so that the judges may travel about the country, making it more convenient, if convenience is desired, for the applicants to be heard. Particularly in our country, I submit that this question is a matter of vital importance because of the tremendous percentage of foreign immigration that we have in this country. The percentage of foreign immigration in Canada to-day largely exceeds the British and therefore we should be taking additional precautions, instead of opening the door wide, as is suggested.


James Arthurs: Confirming what my
hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard has said, in the part of Ontario from which I come, for many years-for political reasons or otherwise, which I am not going into now-foreigners were brought before a magistrate and sworn on the ordinary oath of allegiance to His or Her Majesty, as the case might be, although usually it was Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and then many of them, before they were naturalized were appointed justices of the peace, and some of them occupy that position to-day. They have no adequate knowledge perhaps of English, and no knowledge whatever of French. I support very strongly the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that in all these cases we should take the opinion of the judges of the court. There is no complaint regarding the working of the present act from anybody in the large cities. The city of Montreal is satisfied. The city of Toronto, where we have a large foreign population, is satisfied, and so on throughout the country.
The complaint is made that some of the applicants for naturalization are located a long way from the court, and have to travel many miles to reach a judge, but surely some slight amendment could be made to the act for the purpose of covering such a case. I maintain that in the main the present law is quite satisfactory, and certainly the present method is more advisable than placing the matter in the hands of a justice of the peace and two other mien, who may be his sons or any other two people so long as they are bom in Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: Apparently the government has decided that this naturalization question is going to stay in politics as long as they are in office. We have an amendment

Naturalization Act
before the chair, and in regard to that let me say that in the province of Ontario the office of the justice of the peace has practically been abolished. Every city and town, under the Attorney General's department, today has a police magistrate who is paid a salary. The justices of the peace now have no duties to perform. The cost of administering this act will run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. As I said the other night, this is just a political bill, and it was never intended to be anything else but a political bill to make votes for the government when polling day comes round. Especially in the larger city ridings, like Toronto West Centre or Toronto East Centre, where there is a large fluctuating foreign population, the present law has worked admirably. In the city from which I come, we have six county court judges, and every time the court meets there is a procession of these men appearing to secure naturalization. We must remember that under this law we are not merely granting Canadian citizenship when we issue a certificate of naturalization, but that since 1914 and the agreement that was entered into at the imperial conference of that time, followed by legislation throughout the different dominions, we have been really granting British citizenship throughout the whole empire, and once a British subject always a British subject. You can become a British subject in one of two ways, either by birth or by naturalization.
Coming from a city where we have a large foreign population who on the whole are law-abiding, where the present law has worked very well, I protest against the amendment which the Secretary of State proposes, and so far as the latest amendment is concerned, handing over the inquiry to two native born citizens and a justice of the peace who need not be bom in the country at all, that just makes the bill just so much worse than it was before-a political farce. Wherever this committee of three is working, you would find a political machine trying to coin out certificates of naturalization for people who are expected to vote for the government.
I wish to protest against the principle of this bill. The other night the government brought down a bill to repeal a provision in the criminal code regarding sedition. The Naturalization Act is now being attacked, and dear knows what the next attack of the government will be for the benefit of foreigners. This is just a nice gesture to the prairie foreign voters in the next election;
that is all it is. Whatever you may say about this bill, the fact remains that it is looked upon by the people of this country as a political bill. Chief Justice Meredith, one of the greatest judges the country produced, has written to the Secretary of State of this country wanting information and a ruling or advice of what citizenship is under the present law. If there was more co-operation between the government and the judges the act would be all right.


Willis Keith Baldwin: The hon. gentleman has
mentioned politics. Does he believe that to
the victors belong the spoils?


Peter McGibbon: That is the practice
over there.


Thomas Langton Church: Chief Justice Meredith
has very properly written to the government in the interests of a proper naturalization act, asking if they will define the division of the present law between the judges and the government. We had county court judges before the committee on judges' salaries the other day, and they say that the most important part of their judicial duties is looking after this question of citizenship. Are we to wait until Canada becomes like the United States? When President Harding found, by the last census in the United States, that only 54 per cent of the population were American citizens, his administration brought down a bill closing the door to continental Europe and establishing the quota system, in the interest of the best United States citizenship. That question was taken up by both the parties, Republican and Democratic, both of which strongly opposed the European invasion of that country.
I may say to my hon. friends opposite that if this amendment is passed they will have the spoil system and might just as well abolish the Civil Service Commission. This is simply a political bill. Let us take naturalization out of politics. Our Naturalization Act has worked admirably, and the only trouble has been a lack of co-operation between the Secretary of State and the country court judges. I am opposed to the amendment. Who is asking for it? Have any municipalities asked for it? The Naturalization Act is working efficiently in the county of York. The Naturalization Act is one of the most important statutes, and the government had no mandate to amend it. If at the last election the government had told the people of Ontario that it proposed to pass an amendment along these lines, it would
Naturalization Act

not have secured a single seat throughout the province. Ontario will have to pay the costs of administration under this amendment. A return I secured the other day showed that Ontario was paying 42 per cent of all the cash taxes in the Dominion. It is Ontario that will pay the bulk of the huge cost of such an act as this.
We shall soon have to pass a quota law similar to that in operation across the line. The British born now are getting down to 55 or 50 per cent of the population. In Australia Premier Bruce has tightened up the immigration regulations. He has decided that Australia must be a white man's country. They are getting a majority of the British immigrants. They are doing all the windowdressing in London in immigration. What they have done should be an example to Canada. I submit that this amendment is against the best interests of the British Empire, and it is pretty near time that members from Ontario rose up and protested against this measure. Once more I raise my voice in protest against this bill because it means there will be more politics than ever in the naturalization of immigrants. It is time the British born made a stand against all these acts to benefit the foreign element very largely. The United States have adopted a quota law. The United States was fast approaching the condition of London, England, in 1666, the time of the great fire, which was described, I believe, by the author and poet, Ben Jonson, as follows:
The common sewer of Paris and of Rome
Sucks in the dregs of all corrupted states.
And the American people checked a foreign invasion. We should do likewise and adopt a quota law before it is too late.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Chairman,
I think it must be admitted on all hands that we are dealing with something very vital to the life of Canada when we seek to amend the law relating to citizenship, particularly when we remember that admission to Canadian citizenship also carries with it British citizenship under the law that has been referred to during the course of this debate.
I am sure the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the administration of the Naturalization Act, desires to have accurate and reliable information regarding every applicant for a certificate of naturalization. This being so, I wish to ask him how he can get such information better than through the judges of this country-men who are accustomed to weigh the value of testimony, men who know local conditions, men who have the applicant before them and thus have the

benefit of a personal interview. Surely these judges can be relied upon to obtain that accurate and dependable information without which the Secretary of State should not act. I have not heard it alleged that in the past they have failed in the discharge of their duty, or that they have in any way neglected to report this information in proper form to the Secretary of State.
Our citizenship is of great importance to this country. In the old days a Roman used to boast of his citizenship. I feel that we may as proudly boast of our citizenship. It is, I submit, worth while to impress upon the applicant for the rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship his duties and his responsibilities to Canada and to the empire. Surely those duties and those responsibilities will not be impressed upon him by the methods proposed by this bill.
There can be no doubt that at certain times and in certain places there will be those who will endeavour to use this legislation for political purposes, and it will require very strong resistance on the part of any secretary of state to prevent this. Then why does he place himself in a position where he will have to resist the pressure of friends, where he will have to resist applications made, perhaps on the eve of an election, in a wholesale way for the naturalization of persons by those who desire their votes. Scandals have occured in the past and very likely will occur in the future under legislation of this kind; but under the present statute I submit there is no possibility of anything of the kind happening, and we should use every endeavour to avoid the possibility of its recurring. In the past we have heard a great deal, and perhaps properly so, about irregularities	in	connection	with	the issue ofimmigration permits. Surely this amendment affords	an	opportunity	for a	greater abuseof the	law	on the eve	of an	election. The
title of a bill should, I submit, bear some reference to its purposes and to its meaning, and it seems to me this bill might very properly be entitled an act to permit the peddling of naturalization certificates for political purposes. I notice that the press of the country is very strong indeed in its expressions of opinion against the bill. Coming in on the train this evening I cut out an extract from a local paper reporting the views of the Brantford Expositor, a paper not unfriendly to this administration. This is what the Brantford Expositor says:
Parliament will do well to scrutinize the proposed measure in the most painstaking manner, having regard only for the welfare of Canadian citizenship. Unless it can be proved

Naturalization Act
beyond a doubt that there are injustices which ought to be remedied, the proposed amendment ought to be rejected. Canadian citizenship carries with it a priceless heritage, and it ought not to be granted without full judicial inquiry having been made in regard to the merits of the applicants.
If I took much time I could not more effectively express my opinion and, I venture to say, the opinion of the majority of the people in this country on this question than it has been expressed in this very short article.
I have some knowledge of how this act has worked. I have seen applicants for citizenship appear before the county judge; they have been treated kindly, courteously and with every consideration, and advantage has been taken of the opportunity to inform them of their rights, their privileges and also of their duties. That, I think we must agree, is very important and useful if we are to have that appreciation on the part of our newly naturalized citizens of their rights and of their obligations to Canada. It does not appear that there has been any great measure of inconvenience under the act as it has operated. I can well understand that in some outlying, sparsely settled districts some people possibly have been put to inconvenience. But I would point out that if an applicant is unable to attend court all he has to do is to make a statutory declaration. Under the franchise law, where personal attendance is required, there are provisions that make it possible, in case the applicant for franchise is unable to attend, either through sickness or from any other good cause, for proof to be given on his behalf. It may be furnished by affidavit. But in this case, as far as I understand the legislation, no person is required to swear anything; no evidence is taken on oath. We have one or two certificates given by some interested friends, perhaps some political partisan, and these are sent to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State admits that there should be some investigation, but what opportunity will he have of exercising supervision o<veT those affidavits and of making a proper investigation? Surely we can safely trust our judges to make the investigation. I believe it was the Prime Minister who said that ministerial responsibility would involve ministerial control. Well, it is not at all unusual to find this government asking judges, and appointing commissions, to make investigations and to tell them what they ought to do. And when we have this machinery set up and working so well, we should stop and ask ourselves just why we are making this change, why it is necessary, and who is asking
for it and pressing for it. Is there any injustice? Is there any real inconvenience? Is there any danger to the citizenship of Canada? Shall we not be keeping matters on a higher level if we follow the course pursued in the past, asking the applicants to appear before our courts to vindicate their application and to furnish that measure of proof which is only reasonable and proper, having in view the safeguards essential to the welfare of this country?


Peter McGibbon: This is one bill that
parliament should certainly refuse to let go by. It is nothing more than another attempt by this government to put through legislation for the purpose of keeping itself in office. It is nothing more and nothing less. It has not been asked for by the country; it is not wanted by the country; it is not wanted by this parliament. In fact, it is wanted by no one ibut the government and members on the other side of the house. If any proof were needed in this regard it was furnished the other night by a minister of the crown, the Minister of Agriculture, who rose in this house and, in that jocular manner which he so often assumes, said, "There are thousands and tens of thousands of foreigners in the west and we want to get them naturalized." I looked at the government at the time and I saw, representing the province of Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). Immediately there came to my mind a map presented the other day to a committee of this house-a map of the province of Saskatchewan. That map I have here in my hand, showing the foreign element marked in black. I suppose other hon. members have received it.


George Washington McPhee: Did my hon. friend read the list of foreign settlements given in the map?


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member read them himself the other day in the committee room and he, like many others in this house who are also on that committee, prevented or tried to prevent this information from getting out.


An hon. MEMBER:: What information?


Peter McGibbon: The information I am giving to the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the hon. member let me see the map? I have not had the privilege of looking at one.


Peter McGibbon: Certainly; have a look at it. You will see your own constituency.
Naturalization Act


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend
describe my constituency as being entirely of foreign birth?


Peter McGibbon: I think the minister has a few of them out there.


Charles Avery Dunning: And they are good
Canadian citizens too.


Peter McGibbon: They may be good
Canadian citizens, but their judgment is bad when they vote for the Minister of Railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a matter of
opinion. You tried hard enough to get them and failed.


Peter McGibbon: I got mine in my
constituency. Now, Mr. Chairman, looking over that map we can readily see why this government wants this bill to go through. The Minister of Agriculture is quite frank albout it. He says, "We have thousands and tens of thousands out there and we want to naturalize them." The Prime Minister this evening made the statement that they were all being made equal under the law. That, I submit, is not at all what we are doing. The fact is, they are not under the law; they are under the government. The Secretary of State will have the final say in all these applications.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is my hon. friend relying on this map?


Peter McGibbon: For what?


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like to draw his attention to the fact that all the French-Can-adian settlements in northern Saskatchewan are described here as foreign. If my hon. friend likes to take evidence of that kind that is his privilege.


Peter McGibbon: I see the minister is very sensitive about many things, but he will find that members on this side are a great deal more loyal to this country than members on his side of the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am talking about
foreigners just now.


Peter McGibbon: There are foreigners and foreigners, and I am pointing out that if the government get this bill through all immigrants coming to this country will have to depend upon the government for their naturalization papers, which they cannot secure without going to the Secretary of State. This whole machinery created under this bill will be nothing but political machinery. That is quite evident, and if this parliament does nothing else for the next month we should

oppose the passage of this bill. The present act is working well; these applications come before the highest and most respected tribunals in the country, and what excuse have the government given for changing the procedure? What does the Secretary of State hope to do? For the action which is taken before the judge, before whom the applicant appears to answer questions which test his fitness for becoming a Canadian citizen, the minister is going to substitute nothing but a form of correspondence school, which he himself cannot even supervise. He tells us that a man must be vouched for by three people, but I wonder if there is anyone in this house to-night who thinks there is one man in Canada who could not get all these certificates if he wanted to become naturalized. Do we have to recall what took place in Peace River and in Athabasca to suggest what might take place under this act? The safeguards which the minister claims to have placed in this bill do not amount to anything. For example, he says the notice must be posted in a post office, but I pointed out to the Postmaster General the other evening that in many post offices throughout Canada there is not a place where these notices can be posted. The mail is kept in a room of the house and handed out through the door, and there is absolutely no place where a notice could be posted. If a notice were posted the applicant would last perhaps twenty-four minutes in some cases or twenty-four hours in others.
Then, as I pointed out this afternoon, no provision is made for the filing of objections to these applications for naturalization. I wonder what the minister is going to do in that case. If anyone wishes to object to any person becoming naturalized under this bill, what procedure must he follow? I will pause for a reply.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter McGibbon: My hon friends are not going to make a bit of progress by calling "carried". We on this side have our rights in this house just as hon. members opposite have theirs, and I intend to exercise my privileges. I can stay here and talk until eleven o'clock if it is necessary in order to keep this bill from being carried; I do not want to do so and that is not my intention, but if we cannot be treated with a certain amount of respect when we rise to speak on any question we will have to secure our rights in some other way, and we will see that we do obtain them.
I am not one of those who think it should be made easy for people to become naturalized in this country; I think naturalization is one

Naturalization Act
of the most priceless gifts we can bestow upon anyone. Before we say an applicant will be a good citizen or that he has the making of a good Canadian citizen we must consider the aspirations of the country from which he comes, the attitude of his people towards law and order and towards governments, because all these things will be reflected in the future Canadian nation. Consequently I say that when we are dealing with this matter we should consider it very carefully, and we should proceed with a good deal of caution. Restrictions are necessary to a certain degree; if we do not maintain them we will find a condition existing in this country similar to that prevaling in the United States. We are laying a foundation to-day for the future generations, and nothing is going to contribute more to the soundness of our people in the future than this proposed measure now under consideration.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that in the interests of the government this bill should not pass. We know that when election time comes the Secretary of State will be flooded with applications for naturalization. I am not speaking particularly of the present occupant of that office; no matter who is occupying it at that time pressure will be brought to bear upon him, and being human he will give way under it. This thing eventually will be nothing more or less than a political machine, which will not work to the benefit of the country as a whole. The principle is wrong; the application is wrong, and the results will be disastrous to this country. Speaking for myself, I object to this proposed new act and to the way it is intended to be applied.


Finlay MacDonald: During the debate this afternoon I put a question, to the Secretary of State to which I did not receive an answer. I suppose almost everyone looks at this question more or less from a personal point of view; I have had considerable experience in connection) with the naturalization of aliens in my county, and so far have had no difficulty at all. It seems to me that the discussion we have had has contained a good deal of matter quite apart from the real issue but the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition hawe cleared the atmosphere by their addresses. I think on both sides of the hous'e we agree on the principles underlying this bill; it seems to be the unanimous opinion of members of the house that a person who is entitled to naturalization should receive it, and the only point on which we differ is the question of procedure. We have been told from this side of the house that the present procedure works 56103-176
very well, and that is is simple and economical. Under the present system the applicant in the province of Nova Scotia goes to the clerk of the county court. The clerk gives him a form, fills it out for him if he wants to, and charges him five dollars, and that is all that applicant needs to pay to get his certificate of naturalization. The clerk takes that application and files it in his office, and puts a notice on it of the date when the county court judge will hear that man's application. On that date the applicant appears before the county court judge and is put- through an examination. As the result of that examination the county court judge reports to the Secretary of State, who gives or withholds the certificate.
It has been urged in favour of the change that it is going to be easier under this new law, and that it is going to be less costly and less cumbersome. With regard to the first, I want to say now that it is going to cost very much more for any applicant to get a certificate of naturalization under this new law than it did under the old. In the first place it is necessary for him to get a form from the Secretary of State. How is he going to do that? Great pleasare made on behalf of those people who live in the far distant parts of this country, and for them I think we must all feel a certain amount of sympathy. We want to assist each one of those men who is looking for naturalization. We want him to get it as easily and as cheaply as possible. Is it going to be easier for a man to get a certificate of naturalization? Is it going to be easier, in the first place, for him to get his application form? To whom is he going to apply? You must remember that those people who live in the far distant parts of the country do not know exactly whom to go to. Down in our country they know exactly where the court house is. They know that they can go there and they can get a form and get it filled in, and all they have to do is to pay five dollars. That is every cent it will ever cost a man to get his certificate of naturalization. He does not have to employ a lawyer, or if he does it will cost perhaps $25, which I think is the legal fee down there. Is it possible to conceive that any man in the west is going to know enough about the procedure to do this without employing a lawyer? It is not. The very first thing that man must do is to employ counsel to secure the form for him, and put him through the various steps that enable him to receive his certificate of naturalization.
There is one point on which I think we are all agreed, and that is citizenship in the

Naturalization Act

British Empire. We are all agreed as to the importance of that, and the value that should be attached to it by every person. Is there any danger, is there any menace to be feared from either the procedure under the present law, or under the proposed change? Under the present law, which has now been in force for fourteen years, we have had no charge of any scandal. There is no possibility of any person securing a certificate of natural" ization in this country who is not entitled to it. Under the proposed change, will such a possibility arise? I think we should discuss this matter honestly, and with the knowledge that the political history of this country is not without incidents of various kinds where people have been naturalized who1 were not entitled to naturalization. Until human nature changes, or until such incidents as were brought to our attention the other day in the Athabaska election are eliminated, I think we can prophesy with considerable confidence that politicians will be found in the future who will not hesitate to take advantage of the opportunity at election time to naturalize those who are not qualified for naturalization, if it is going to swell their election vote.
It is said that the amendments submitted by the Secretary of State go far to preclude any possibility of fraudulent devices on the part of people applying for naturalization. I want to say that everyone of those amendments is prefectly innocuous, as far as any prevention of fraudulent practice is concerned. In the first place, it is said that you must advertise it in the newspaper, and post it in the post office. The difficulties in the way of that have already been pointed out. If, for instance, we are going to visualize a scene where there is a concerted attempt, as there was in the Athabaska election, a procedure to steal an election, it will begin three months before the taking of the poll. There will then be a gathering in some political hall-I am not saying that it will be a Liberal hall any more than a Tory hall, but it will be a corrupt hall, whatever hall it is-and the leaders will be there, and the chances are very much that the gathering will be pretty sure of having a sympathetic hearing from the Secretary of State, Whoever he may be. Supposing there is a corrupt Secretary of State, which I am glad to say is not the case in the present instance-we all have the highest regard for the present holder of that office-you can see the possibilities. In my county I am fortunate enough to have opponents who are far above doing anything of that sort., but there are counties in this Do-

minion where such practices have prevailed in the past, and it is possible that they may prevail in the future.
Mr.'ROBB: Is my hon. friend referring to Colchester?


Finlay MacDonald: No, I am not referring to Colchester. There was some reference a long time ago to Colchester, but I have not heard the name of my friend the member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt) in connection with it. He is a man of exceptional integrity. I am glad to assure the Minister of Finance that if there has been anything wrong in politics, as far as Colchester or any other county in the province of Nova Scotia, is concerned the old province of Nova Scotia stands pretty well as to honesty in conducting elections. It is rarely indeed that we have any scandals of that sort down there. It is rarely indeed that we hear of the operations of any Baldy Robb or any other gentleman of that description down in Nova Scotia. He would be too near the waters of the Atlantic to try anything like that,
Let us visualize a little further the procedure under the proposed legislation. The first procedure will be to post notices in the post office and to satisfy the Secretary of State that that has been done. It is not necessary to keep the notices posted up very long; perhaps fifteen minutes will be sufficient to justify an affidavit on the part of any person that a notice has been duly posted in the post office and that the requirements of the act have been fulfilled.
The next thing is the advertisement in some newspaper, and I believe the advertisement will cost the man in the west a greater amount than at present he will have to pay in order to get his naturalization papers. That difficulty however can be overcome. The next thing is to get two homesteaders, two people who own their own land and a magistrate. There is not in the Dominion a county where three corrupt men cannot be found who will sign any papers necessary to carry their party through an election. In this way we have the stage all set for the perpetration of that very thing that we all fear.
In regard to my own constituency I asked a very simple question and I have yet to receive an answer. Under the present circumstances the county court judge of my county passes upon the qualifications of the applicants who come before him. Surely the Secretary of State, no matter who he may be, must depend upon the report that comes to him. As the act now stands he receives the report of the county court judge. He must get a report from somebody and he says that

British Empire Steel Corporation
he is going to get a report from, it may be, a member of the mounted police. Unfortunately, or fortunately, because we are a law-abiding people in our part of the country, we have no mounted police. If we do not get a mounted policeman, the minister says: We will get a homestead inspector. We have no homestead inspectors; we have no hay and straw inspectors; we have no egg inspectors, and I do not know just what official the minister is going to employ. If I had an assurance from him that he was going to appoint some reputable person as an inspector I would feel easier about the matter, but the only information he gives us is that it will be either a mounted police officer, a homestead inspector or others. It is that word "others" that I am afraid of. It is a very comprehensive word and under it he can employ any person under heaven he wants to and send him down to my constituency. That is the man on whose report the minister is going to pass upon the qualifications of the applicant for naturalization.
In view of the importance of the subject, in view of the safeguards that past parliaments have thrown around this great privilege, and in view of the imperial conference which agreed upon these qualifications, are we at this late date to nullify the work of all those people? Are we to cheapen citizenship in the British Empire? Or are we to open the door to a possibility of that being done? I hesitate to charge the government with any intent to do anything of the kind. Possibly I may be a bit heretical in saying this, but I regard them individually as very high class gentlemen. As regards the government collectively, I am sorry to say my opinion is not so high. If I could feel assured that the present Secretary of State would hold that office for a long term of years I would feel easier, but I am satisfied that his tenure is not going to be very long and it is within the bounds of possibility that a Tory government may come in. We all know what the record of the Tories was in the past and I am scared at the scandals that may arise in the future if we have a Tory government in power and a corrupt Secretary of State! That is the reason why I for one am going to oppose this bill with all the amendments, because the amendments, so far as I can see, have not tended in the slightest degree to improve the original idea.
There is another point that is urged by some members and that is that this measure will tend towards uniformity. I do not under-56103-1761
stand how there is going to be any greater uniformity under this legislation than there was in the past.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 8, 1928