1928-05-01

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: I notice that the government have decided to give a particular private bill precedence over the others to-night. This is contrary to the rules of the house. I desire to ask what they propose to do in regard to order No. 28 with reference to Bill No. 63, which deals with telephone and telegraph companies. This is one of the most important public bills on the order paper. There is also another important bill respecting lapsed policies under the Insurance Act. These are bills involving public policy and should have precedence. They have been on the order paper for some considerable time and have not been advanced. They affect the body politic of the whole Dominion and should be given some consideration.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I do not think any bill can have
precedence over others unless by unanimous consent. All that was said yesterday with respect to the bill in which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) is interested was that owing to the special circumstances surrounding it the government would not oppose a request from him that the bill be proceeded with first to-night. That, however, is as far as we can go.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Ad-dington):: About five or six weeks ago I
placed on the order paper a question relating to the alienation of lands in the west and the authority therefor. I desire to know from the Minister of the Interior when I may expect an answer. I may say that the question was passed as an order for return.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I will inquire and give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.



ASBESTOS CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: I was going to ask whether the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been
directed to threatened proceedings against the Asbestos Corporation of Canada and the United States, whether there was any correspondence, and what action it is proposed to take. I see the right hon. gentleman is not present. I merely mention the matter and will let it stand until he is in his place.


Ernest Lapointe: I will call my right hon. friend's
attention to the question.



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 30 consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, to amend the Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Application to court and issue of certificate.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Last evening I was discussing this measure and I had briefly referred to the circumstances that led up to the passing of the legislation in 1914. Possibly I should have pointed out that in 1914 we enacted a statute which was drafted by the draftsman of the British parliament. During the progress of the discussion at that time the matter was considered in detail and certain observations' were made as to the drafting of the measure, whereupon Mr. Borden, now Sir Robert Borden, directed the attention of the house to the fact to which I have just alluded, namely, that the measure had been drafted in Great Britain. The reason was obvious. This is a very serious obligation imposed upon the British Empire, and as the taxpayer in Great Britain is so much concerned, inasmuch as he largely makes possible the maintenance of the fleet that insures the safety of our citizens on the high seas, the drafting of the bill became a matter of paramount importance. When the measure was introduced in the legislature of each of the various self-governing communities composing the empire it was the same in terms, except for such variations only as might be essential in view of the conditions under which these respective communities live.
The Naturalization Act divides itself into two branches: first there is the question of principle under which naturalization may be granted; and secondly the act relates to procedure. Those who are interested in the matter will find in our revised statutes the act set out as it now exists. In 1919 we made some amendments to the statute. It is unnecessary to do more than point out that we have set up conditions under which naturalization may be granted. These conditions I will refer to for the reason that it becomes important to consider them
2544	COMMONS
Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
in the light of what was done by the other communities of the empire, and in view also of the observations made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret), which I regret to say he must have made inadvertently, because a mere casual observation of the legislation of other portions of the empire will show that the hon. gentleman is wholly wrong.
The statute in question is now chapter 138 of the Act respecting British Nationality, Naturalization and Aliens. The section relating to the question of principle is' section 4:
The minister may grant a certificate of naturalization to an alien who makes an application for the purpose, and satisfies the minister-
(a)	That he has either resided in His Majesty's dominions for a period of not less than five years in the manner required by this section, or been in the service of the crown for not less than five years, within the last eight years before the application; and
(b)	that he is of good character and has an adequate knowledge of either the English or French languages; and
(c)	that he intends if his application is granted either to reside in His Majesty's dominions or to enter or continue in the service of the crown.
Then follows the provision respecting residence required. It is residence in Canada for not less than one year immediately preceding the application, and previous residence, either in Canada or in some other part of His Majesty's dominions, for a period of four years within the last eight years before the application.
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.
(4)	A certificate of naturalization shall not take effect until the applicant has taken the oath of allegiance.
(5)	In the case of a woman who was a British subject previously to her marriage to an alien and whose husband has died, or whose marriage has been dissolved, the requirements of this section as to residence shall not apply, and the minister may, in any other special ease, if he thinks fit, grant a certificate of naturalization, although the four years' residence or five years' service has not been within the last eight years before the application.
(6)	For the purposes of this section a period spent in the service of the crown may, if the minister thinks fit, be treated as equivalent to a period of residence in Canada.
This embodies the amendments of 1914, enacted after t'he outbreak of the war, and also those of 1920, which I think many hon members will recall. It is the principle upon which naturalization is granted to an alien in this country, conferring upon him the status

of a British subject throughout the world, with all the immunities, the rights and the powers that belong to such a subject. Now comes the next question-the conditions under which this privilege may be granted. There is a provision dealing with procedure -and evidence, commencing at section 22 and including the following sections down to section 28. The section, I have read having settled the principle, we now apply procedure and evidence and these matters are dealt with as follows:
22.	An alien desiring to be naturalized shall apply for a decision establishing that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this act to any judge of any superior court or to any judge of any circuit, district or county court, and in the province of Ontario the court of general sessions of the peace, and in the Northwest Territories to such authorities or persons as the governor in council may prescribe.
23.	The application shall be delivered at the office of the clerk or other proper officer of the court during office hours, and such application shall be posted by such clerk or other proper officer in a conspicuous place in his office, continuously for a period of at least three months before the application is heard by the court.
That is the second provision, with respect to procedure. To continue:
24.	At any time after the filing of such application and previous to the hearing of the application, any person objecting to the naturalization of the alien may file in court an opposition in which shall be stated the grounds of his objection.
25.	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.
26.	If the court decides that the alien is a fit and proper person to be naturalized and possesses the required qualifications, a certified copy of such decision shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the minister together with the application and such other papers, documents and reports as may be required by any regulation made hereunder.
27.	The minister may thereupon in his absolute discretion issue a certificate of naturalization and shall send the same to the clerk of the court to whom the application for naturalization was made.
(2) Upon the applicant taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance, which may be so taken and subscribed by any person duly authorized to administer judicial oaths by the laws of the province in which the applicant resides, the clerk shall deliver the certificate to the applicant.
Those are the conditions as to procedure under which the principles to which I have referred are made applicable. It was suggested that this appearing in court was a

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
difficult matter. I dealt with that in 1914, and if any hon. gentlemen are curious and desire to see what is the law in the United States, if they are not bored by reading my observations at that time they will find that applicants must appear in open court, supported by two witnesses in open court, who must give evidence as to their character and their fitness to become American citizens, and the applicant must publicly renounce his allegiance to his former sovereign and former country. Further than that, in open court he must take an oath that he does believe in organized government and that he is not a member of any organization or society which has in mind the destruction of governments. Those are parts of the conditions which are imposed in the United States.
We have imposed less onerous conditions in Canada, under the sections which I have just read and which it is now proposed to repeal. There is not another word substituted; there is not another suggestion made to take the place of these sections. We are just leaving it in the hands of the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations, and I say to him if he had taken the trouble to read the laws of the other parts of the British Empire he would not have said what he did last evening. Canada is not the only country which has made these provisions with respect to procedure, and first we will consider the nearby country of Newfoundland. They passed the same statute; they had to deal with the same matter, and what action did they take? In 1915, having enacted the substantial provisions with respect to principle to which I have just alluded, we find them further providing for these cases. The first sections only deal with the manner in which they may be dealt with, and I will not read them again. Section 19 of chapter 11 of the statutes of 1915 of Newfoundland reads as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations generally for carrying into effect the objects of this act, and in particular with respect to the following matters:
(a)	The form and registration of certificates of naturalization granted by the Colonial Secretary;
(b)	The form and registration of declarations of alienage and declarations of resumption or retention of British nationality;
(e) The time within which the oath of allegiance is to be taken. . . .
And so on. Then there is a provision with respect to proof of certificates and with respect to the evidence of declarations. In other words, the colony of Newfoundland dealt with the matter of procedure through
the regulations which might be made by the colonial secretary or the governor in council.


Mr. RINFRET:: Will my hon. friend allow me to interrupt? That will be exactly the situation in Canada if this bill passes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, in part; I am coming to that. Now let us consider New Zealand. That country passed a statute in 1923, after the war, to amend and consolidate the former legislation, and that statute embodies certain provisions now found in our revised statutes. They have the same provisions with respect to the principle which we now have in Canada, and then comes section 4 of their act:
When any alien friend

That is different from our statute.
-residing in New Zealand desires to be naturalized as a British subject in New Zealand, he may present to the minister an application in writing signed by him, setting forth-	.
(a)	His name, age, birthplace, residence,
occupation, and nationality:	_
(b)	The length of his residence in New Zealand and his desire to settle therein either permanently or for a limited period, stating such limited period (if any):
(e) A request that a certificate of naturalization may be granted to him.
(2) Every such application shall be verified by a statutory declaration subscribed by the applicant.
Then section 5 continues:
(1)	If the minister is satisfied-
(a)	That the applicant has either resided within New Zealand for a period not less than the prescribed time or has been in the service of the crown in any part of His Majesty's dominions for not less than five years within the last eight years; and
(b)	That the applicant is of good character and has an adequate knowledge of the English language; and
(c)	That the applicant intends, if his application is granted, to continue to reside in His Majesty's dominions, or to enter, or continue in, the service of the crown; and
(d)	That in all other respects the applicant is a person fit to hold and exercise the rights of a British subject in New Zealand-the minister may grant a certificate of naturalization to the applicant.
(2) 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.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will
allow me, all these dispositions will remain in the law when we have repealed the sections referring the cases to the courts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to just
what my hon. friend is leaving out; I am

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
pointing out that we are leaving to regulation what is now a matter of statute in part in the other British communities. Further, we are doing what is not being done in any other part of this empire. It is true that there is a broad power in our section 28 which I mentioned with respect to regulations ; that section was drafted in Great Britain and sent to Canada and all the other self-governing communities throughout the world where our empire extends. That is the position, and with the reason for the absolute discretion resting with the minister I shall presently deal, but it is not a political discretion. To that I shall also refer.


Mr. DUNNING:: It is not so intended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It should not be, but it
will be; we have had some experience in these things.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think any
Secretary of State from either side of the house would so act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not mention the
Secretary of State. While I am on the subject of New Zealand and Australia, I would mention that a representative of New Zealand was here the other day, and he explained to us that the population of New Zealand is between 95 per cent and 100 per cent British, and that in Australia the population is over 90 per cent of British origin. That is the reason why I dealt with those two countries first, because they are exactly similar to Great Britain; they have a solid British population with only one language to consider, and the conditions under which naturalization certificates are to be granted are vastly different from those which obtain in this country, to which we have invited hundreds of thousands of people of practically every race in the world.
Now let me go to the Union of South Africa. I was very curious about that country, because there they have two languages also. I have in my hand a copy of the statutes of South Africa, which are printed in English on one page and in Dutch on the other page.. I now read from the act of 1910, the first act with respect to aliens, because as you will remember they passed their act before we passed ours. This act was to consolidate and amend the laws with respect to naturalization, and I would like the Secretary of State to listen to section 4 of that act:
Every applicant for naturalization shall:-
(a)	publish in the Gazette a notice, in the 
prescribed form, of his intention to apply for a certificate of naturalization in the union; and
(b)	produce, in support of his application, proof that he has so published such a notice, together with a certificate signed by a magistrate, justice of the peace, or field cornet, stating that the applicant is personally known to the person so signing and that to the best of that person's knowledge and belief the applicant is of good character and repute and possesses the qualifications for naturalization prescribed by this act;
(c)	furnish such further evidence as the minister may require of his service under the crown or (as the case may be) of the period of residence prescribed in the last preceding section as a qualification for naturalization, and of his intention to reside in the union; and
(d)	furnish such evidence as the minister may require as to the name, sex, age, and place of birth of each of his minor children (if any) who, at the time of his application, are-
(i)	resident with him in the union;
(ii)	not resident in the union.
5. The minister, upon receipt of the particulars prescribed in the last preceding section, shall take the applicant's case into consideration and may, with or without assigning any reason, grant or refuse his application as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision.
I read that because it is one of the standard sections that appeared in all the naturalization acts as drafted by the parliamentary draftsman. Then follow the usual sections with respect to the certifying of the necessary documents.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the langugae
qualification there?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is any langugage which is the official language in the state, I think.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am sure my hon. friend will admit that this is subject to regulations. The principle of the bill now is that the Secretary of State shall have the discretion of granting or refusing a certificate; and I am sure that obtains in every dominion in the British Empire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have mentioned that,
and I say that is the understanding under which this arrangement was arrived at; but I am now stating what are the provisions of the statute in South Africa with respect to the matter, and how proceedings are regulated. There are two questions, one of principle, with which I submit we may not deal without breaking our bargain with Great Britain; and the other the question of procedure, and I am pointing out the requirement of procedure in South Africa which I have just read to the house.
My hon. friend the Minister of Railways has asked me with respect to the language question.

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett


Charles Avery Dunning: I am asking you that because it raises another very interesting question with regard to naturalization. My impression is that in South Africa the Dutch language as well as the English language would qualify.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statutes themselves
are printed, one page in Dutch and the other in English; I have made that clear.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am pointing out that
a worldwide British naturalization would be granted to a man who could speak only Dutch, in South Africa, but he could not be naturalized in Canada, while in Canada a gentleman who could speak only French may be naturalized but could not be naturalized in South Africa.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any more senseless remark I have never heard.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend would
only have patience, instead of getting out of temper and describing an hon. gentleman in the terms that he has used, he would have seen in a moment the point which I was trying to make. What we are dealing with after all is British Empire naturalization, and the man who cannot speak-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman
possess his soul in patience?


Charles Avery Dunning: Then, Mr. Chairman. I
rise to a point of order on the use of the word "senseless."


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no question of
order, Mr. Chairman. This hon. gentleman has a habit of butting into discussions.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. leader of the opposition has the floor, but the hon. Minister of Railways raises a point-


Charles Avery Dunning: I am awaiting your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to the use of the word "senseless." Is it in order?


John Frederick Johnston: If the word is applied
to the hon. gentleman-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said his observations.


Charles Avery Dunning: All right, my time will
come.


Mr. McPHEE:: Mr. Chairman, I have
followed the hon. gentleman very carefully and may I ask a question: In Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa are applications for naturalization referred to the courts?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is not much
sense of humour in that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apparently, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of gentlemen who do not desire to follow this question. This is beyond all odds the most important domestic question with which this parliament will deal. I invite gentlemen who are interested in it and 'will take the history of western Canada as an example, to look at the observations which I made in 1914, which were unchallenged and which were regarded at that time by both parties as being sound on a question which engaged the attention of Canadian clubs and other organizations; when all that had to be done was to sign a document before a commissioner or a justice of the peace and post it up; and I saw one member of a legislature wdio was elected by sixteen men, none of whom was able to understand practically a single word in the English or the French language, who could only speak Italian and had to do it through an interpreter. I am only mentioning that to show the seriousness of the matter with which we are dealing.
Now I will deal further with the South African statute. The South African statute to which I refer was that of 1910. which was amended after the war, in 1926; and the South African statute has at least some analogy to the conditions we have here, because they have at least two official languages there, and we have two here. The first section provides that the named persons shall be deemed natural born British subjects. Then follow the provisions for the naturalization of aliens, and subsection (b) of section 2 reads as follows:
That he is of good character and able to read and write-
I hope the hon. gentleman will follow this:
-either of the official languages of the union, to the satisfaction of the minister.
That is the position and it is contained in the last of the South African acts, namely, that of 1926.
The next question which arises in regard to South Africa is: How does the minister satisfy himself upon that point? I find that section 19 of the act deals with the matter in the following terms:
Every applicant for naturalization shall-
(a)	not less than one month before he makes application for naturalization to the minister, publish in the Gazette in both the official languages and in one English and one Dutch newspaper circulating in the district in which ho resides, a notice, in the prescribed form, of his intention to apply under this act for a certificate of naturalization; and
(b)	produce, in support of his application, proof that he has so published such notices together with a certificate signed by a magistrate, or justice of the peace, stating that the person so signing has satisfied himself by in-

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
quiries instituted by him that the applicant is of good character and repute and possesses the qualifications for naturalization prescribed by this act;
(c)	furnish such further evidence as the minister may require of his service under the crown or (as the case may be) the period of his residence prescribed in section two as a qualification for naturalization and of his intention to reside in the union; and
(d)	furnish such evidence as the minister may require as to the name, sex, age, and place of birth of each of his minor children (if any) who, at the time of his application, are-
(1)	resident -with him in the union;
(ii) not resident in the union.
(2)	Any person may on payment of the prescribed fee inspect any document produced under subsection 1 of this section.
Then follows section 20, which states:
Any person may make representations to the minister with regard to any person who has applied or has advertised his intention to apply for naturalization.
(2)	The representations shall be in the form of an affidavit.
(3)	The contents of any affidavit filed with the minister in pursuance of this section shall not be disclosed to any person other than for the purpose of legal proceedings for any false statement made in the affidavit.
Then follow sections 21 and 22, dealing with the evidence of declarations and certificates of naturalization. Then there follows this further provision in section 27:
(1) The minister shall-
(a) enrol as of record the issue of all certificates of naturalization granted under this act;
(b)	cancel all certificates of naturalization which have been revoked and publish in the Gazette a list of such revocations with such details as may be prescribed;
(c) cause to be made indices of all the certificates of naturalization (whether granted under this act or any prior law) and permit any person at all reasonable times to inspect the indices and to make copies of such certificates, on payment of the prescribed fee;
(d)	In the months of January and July in every year, publish in the Gazette a return of all persons to whom certificates of naturalization have been granted during the preceding half-year, and in that return show, in respect of each person-
(i)	his name in full;
(ii)	his birthplace;
(iii)	his nationality prior to the grant of the certificate of naturalization;
(iv)	his occupation;
(v)	the date of the issue of the certificate of naturalization.
I point these out because they are the provisions in the statute of South Africa where they have two official languages, the Dutch and the English, and where the minister may not grant an applicant a certificate of naturalization unless and until the formalities which I have cited have been observed. They are not regulations that may be changed

by order in council but regulations that are part of the statutory law of the country and that are not left to either the whim or the caprice of ministers or governments. That is the position with respect to South Africa.
In the commonwealth of Australia there are with respect to naturalization provisions much the same in terms as those which exist in New Zealand except that, the law having been consolidated in 1920, they are somewhat more ample than they are in this country, or, in fact, than in some others. Division 3 relates to procedure and evidence and this is the way in which they deal with the matter in Australia under section 25 of the act and not by regulations. Section 25 reads:
(1)	An applicant for a certificate of naturalization shall produce in support of his application his own statutory declaration stating his name, age, birthplace, occupation and residence, the length of his residence in the British Empire or the period within the eight years preceding the date of his application during which he has been in the service of the crown, and such other particulars as are prescribed and that he intends to settle in the British Empire or to enter or continue in the service of the crown.
(2)	In addition to compliance with the preceding provisions of this section an applicant shall-	.
(a)	advertise in the manner prescribed lus intention to seek naturalization and produce to the minister newspapers containing copies of the prescribed advertisement; and
(b)	produce certificates of character from three natural-born British subjects, two of whom are householders and one of whom is a justice of the peace, a postmaster, a teacher of a state school or an officer of the police force of the commonwealth or a state.
(3)	Any person may on payment of the prescribed fee, inspect any certificate produced in pursuance of the last preceding subsection.
Then there are the same provisions as in South Africa with respect to the right of any person to make declarations in opposition to the application for naturalization. The statute was amended later by striking out the words " justice of the peace ", but I do not concede that to be of importance to the discussion that we are now having. In 1922 there were certain other amendments that do not touch this point.
What have we? We have first of all an agreement by Great Britain as to naturalization and we were to pass a standard bill throughout the British Empire with respect to principle, the procedure being left largely, if not entirely, to the local authorities except that the several bills seem to have been drafted by the parliamentary draftsman in Great Britain. I have read to the committee the provisions in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland. When we in Canada came to consider this matter we did

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
not do so in a hurry nor without careful consideration of what was involved. When Mr. Doherty, the then Minister of Justice, moved the first reading of his bill in the House of Commons on the 22nd May, 1914, he explained the circumstances with great fullness to the house. The then leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, made some Observations, and during the course of the debate I thought it desirable to mention what had been going on in western Canada with respect to naturalization and the pressure that was being brought to bear upon public men to ensure a better law and a more wholesome observance of the law as it then stood. For instance, I then placed upon Hansard the circumstances under which naturalization was granted in the United States and the words of the statute are worth while considering. They are these:
That every final hearing upon such petitions shall be had in open court before a judge or judges thereof, and every final order which may be made upon such petition shall be under the hand of the court and entered in full upon a record kept for that purpose, and upon such final hearing of such petition the applicant and witnesses shall be examined under oath before the court and in the presence of the court.
Not only the applicant but the witnesses have to be examined under oath. In the United States the provision with respect to language deals only with the English language, they having but one official language. The provision is this:
That no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the United States who cannot speak the English language: Provided, that this requirement shall not apply to aliens-
-under certain circumstances that have no bearing on this discussion. The bill passed its second reading, was considered in committee and then came up for third reading in the house. When it came up for third reading on June 4 -and I direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the words of the great leader of the Liberal party in connection with this matter-Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved the following amendment:
That this bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house with instructions that they have power to amend it by striking out subsections 3 and 5 of section 2.
He argued that they should be struck out because they gave too wide powers to the Secretary of State and these are his words which I commend to the minister at this time:
We have given the courts of law the power to determine that question, and we have provided that the applicant must come before
the court and give evidence of his character; that the judge may, if not satisfied with the proof placed before him, ask for further evidence, and that there may be a trial before the judge as to whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to be a British subject.
Further he said:
The judge determines the question, and then the matter is not finally disposed of, but is referred to the Secretary of State, who, purely arbitrarily, without giving any reasons, but simply of his own will, may or may not grant a certificate. Such a disposition is absolutely repugnant to the spirit of our institutions.
Those are the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Did that speech convince my hon. friend at the time and did he vote for Sir Wilfrid Laurier's amendment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly did not
for reasons I can explain to the minister so easily that there will be no difficulty in his understanding this, that the bill in that regard was a standard bill and at the conference that took place in England Mr. Churchill and Sir John Simon stated the position in these words. Mr. Churchill said:
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.
This is what Sir John Simon said:
It is essential to the scheme which the Home Secretary lias referred to, that the grant of an imperial certificate should be a matter of discretion, and that that discretion should be exercised, not in all eases by the home government, of course, but by the authority which has the local opportunity of judging of the man's personal qualities and credentials during the last year of his five years. That seems to me to be essential to the scheme.
Therefore the scheme went by the board unless it were adopted as a whole, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier was so taken with the explanation that was given that the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was negatived on division without any vote being recorded. The point to which I direct attention is that the Liberal party of that day set its face steadily against bureaucracy and centralization, against the usurpation of power by a minister in regard to matters that concern the whole body politic of this country, and where- the exercise of that power improperly would involve very serious consequences to the country. I could have read further, but I have read just that to show what the leader of the opposition at that time said.
But let us go further. Let us look into this matter from the other angle. I have stated the principle and I have stated the procedure of the various countries, but let us

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
ask what we are now doing, because that is the important thing. What we are now doing is at variance with what has been done in communities similarly situated to ours. But we go further than that. This entrusts to the minister, by any machinery that he at his whim may set lip, the determination of the fitness of a man to become a British subject. That is what is does in terms. Why abolish the judicial proceedings? Why abolish the judges? It is said that it means great cost and expense, but what is that compared with the cost and expense in the United States, or in South Africa? What is the cost compared with the priceless boon that is being conferred upon these people by giving them British ctizenship? We have courts in this country, and I would like hon. gentlemen opposite to know that in all the western country, about which they are so solicitous, the county court judges hold their courts in practically every small community of western Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The local government can easily provide that. They do in Alberta. It is only the local government that has authority in that matter, and it has been a Liberal local government in Saskatchewan ever since 1905. If they have not these facilities there it is the fault of the local government, not of this parliament. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) shakes his head. He knows perfectly well that the only authority that may determine the place of the sittings of the court is the provincial government, and if they have not these facilities in his part of the country, it is because they have not been given to the people by the local government. 'But in Alberta, in every small community, the district courts meet from time to time for the purpose of enabling litigants to dispose of small suits up to $600, and will any man in this house say that you can travel a considerable distance to deal with a $100 suit, and not regard it important enough to travel that distance to become a British subject? That is the question.
Let me go further. Think what it means to Great Britain. We are not paying the piper. We are not maintaining a fleet on the high seas that polices the world. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) is not interested in that. They are paying it over yonder, and we owe to them a duty to see to it that we protect this naturalization of ours in every way and manner in which it is possible to do so, in order that the responsibility upon Great Britain may not be greater than it is.
I will tell hon. gentlemen of something I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Glen) and my hon. friend from Yorkton are both members of the same profession to which I belong, and I ask them if during the last ten years they have not been in courts of law in this country in which cases were being carried on in which neither party could give his story in either the English or the French language.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What has that got to do with it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought they would say that. Do they realize that this statute says that a certificate of naturalization shall not be granted to any alien unless he possesses an adequate knowledge of either the English or French language? What has that got to do with it? Simply this, that wherever you see in this country British subjects who have no adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language, you know perfectly well that naturalization has been granted in some wrong and improper manner.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Would they
necessarily have to 'be British subjects if they appeared in a suit in a court of law?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am unable to understand the question.


Malcolm McLean: I will explain it. The leader of the opposition appealed to two hon. gentlemen on this side belonging to the bar and cited cases in court where the principals could not state their case in either English or French at least leaving us to assume that they must be Canadian citizens, and that somebody had been derelict in his duty in granting naturalization to these people without their possessing an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will add to it that they were British subjects.


Malcolm McLean: That is different.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I am making, and if there is any misunderstanding about that, I will remove it at once.


Mr. THORSON:: For information, may I ask if the term "Canadian citizen" is used anywhere in the Naturalization Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
Winnipeg South Centre has more time to go over the act than I have, and can find that out for himself.
Let us go a step further. What are you doing in this statute? Perhaps to the hon.

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
gentleman it means nothing, it is perhaps a huge joke that you naturalize by the hundred people who have no adequate knowledge of either the English or French language. I have been in communities' where people had citizenship papers and could not speak either the English or the French language.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will allow me, is not that evident proof that in such cases the courts did not act properly? That is just what we claim.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If hon. gentlemen will just wait a moment, they will not cheer. They were cases under the old act which made no provision for a knowledge of either the English or French language.


Malcolm McLean: Why cite those cases at all, then?


Richard Bedford Bennett: To show what this act means to this country. Great Britain and ourselves made the agreement we did to bring about a uniform law, and in those countries where there was only one official language, the language was to be English, and in those countries where there were two official languages, it could be either English or another official language; but prior to 1914 there were no provisions with respect to any tongue whatsoever, and my hon. friends know that it was a crying scandal in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and partly in Manitoba, where thousands of men were naturalized by being huddled together in a group, and someone going in to them with a paper and asking them to sign their names-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That was under the
Roblin government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That shows the type of mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He says it was under the Roblin government.	What did they have to do
with naturalization? Surely he knows better than that.


Malcolm McLean: Their friends,
the government of the day in Ottawa, had something to do with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From 1911 to 1914 the old statute prevailed, but in 1914 the new act was enacted. Fourteen years have elapsed since then, and wherever you findl a naturalization certificate in the possession of a man under the age of thirty-five in this country- they had to be twenty-one years old to be naturalized, and fourteen years have elapsed since-someone has failed in his duty if that man does not possess an adequate knowledge
of either the English or the French language. What have we seen prior to that time? Prior to 1914 we have seen men huddled together in a group, names signed, a person, usually some heeler, appointed a notary public, a commissioner of oaths or justice of the peace for the purpose, and going in and signing a certificate that these men were of good character, although he had never seen them before, they having been just rushed up to sign the necessary documents, and then certificates were granted-they called them citizenship papers. I have seen these papers with my own eyes in the possession of men in court who were unable to speak either the English or the French language, and who could only communicate through an interpreter. It was to stop that sort of thing that this statute was passed, to compel them to have an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language before they could receive a certificate of naturalization, a certificate, mark you, that gave them British citizenship not merely in Canada, not merely within the three-mile limit, but within every part of the world.
What did we witness during the war? I wonder if hon. gentlemen recall in their own communities what I have seen in mine? I received a letter from a soldier at the front who had seen as a prisoner of war, one who had been a German barber in the city of Calgary a few months before. This man was a naturalized Canadian. Does that mean anything? That is the very sort of thing we want to prevent. He was a German citizen. The moment he got outside the three-mile limit he was no longer a British subject.


Mr. JACOBS:: It shows that the hon.
member for West Calgary must have had a very close shave.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be as amusing
as that to the hon. gentleman; it is not to me. I believe it strikes at the very foundation of the life of this country. I ventured to say so in 1914, and I have a stronger view now than I had then, for I have watched the administration of this law. Let me go one step further. There was a well-known citizen of one of our communities who was naturalized, and yet he was captured within the German lines. On the bodies of some of those who unfortunately met their death in the war there was found evidence of their having been in Canada not very long before.
In 1914 we endeavoured to meet a new situation by this legislation, and we provided the machinery which Sir Wilfrid Laurier said

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
had been in use in this country from the very inception of our form of naturalization. He put it in this way:
When we adopted the law of naturalization, we did not copy the British precedent. We did not provide that' the Secretary of State should arbitrarily have the power which is given to the Home Office in Great Britain; but we provided that the decision of the judge should be final and should not be revised by anyone. I have not heard that any complication has arisen; or that it has ever been felt that there was in Canada any necessity, as there appears to be in Great Britain, for the Secretary of State to be given such power as this.
But he added:
If there is reason for such legislation, it must be that the government of Great Britain have found it necessary, in order to avoid diplomatic complications, to reserve that power.
And after the explanation of Mr. Doherty, the third reading of the bill was given on division, Sir Wilfrid being satisfied by the statement made with respect to the diplomatic obligations that were involved in connection with this imperial citizenship.
Now I ask the minister this question. We have passed principle, we have passed procedure as it is in other countries. What does he propose? He proposes to do one of two things. His amendment provides that the minister must be satisfied. Therefore the minister himself must go and find out personally, or he must delegate the power to someone else; there is no alternative. He is not going to wander over this country and examine each applicant for naturalization to see if he has an adequate knowledge of English or French; he cannot do it personally; therefore he is going to delegate that power to someone. Who is this to be? That is the problem. In times past that power has been delegated to our judges, and to them only, for this reason: there is the machinery-the clerks, the place where notices can be given, the boards on which they can be displayed. In South Africa and other countries these notices are published in the official gazette; here , they are posted on a board in the clerk's office. Again I ask, to whom is he going to delegate that power. Yesterday he said: to homestead inspectors or the mounted police. They are already used by the minister for certain work. But to whom is he going to delegate the power to determine whether these applicants for naturalization have an adequate knowledge of English or French? He read from a letter written by Chief Justice Meredith, who points out that the Secretary of State has given no lead as to how these matters should be determined, and each judge must determine them for himself. That is so.

There is no uniformity decision in matters of judicial discretion. It has been laid down by all the great law lords that while judicial discretion is hedged around by certain rules, and there is no such thing as a casual or whimsical expression of discretion, yet the judicial discretion of one judge may not be the judicial discretion of another. In this case, for instance, one judge might regard a sufficient knowledge of English or French as being indicated by a casual conversation, while another might say: I want you to answer certain questions.
Do hon. gentlemen realize the implications of this measure? We have provided, that the Secretary of State shall be satisfied, and up to this moment we have said that the power is judicial and not political. But a homestead inspector is a political appointee. There was a day in the province of Alberta when homestead inspectors went out to alien settlements holding in the one hand a recommendation for a patent for 160 acres of land and in the other an application for naturalization. That dlay is not so long past, and I speak of wihat I know; it ended in 1911. Then the war came on and now homestead inspectors are appointed under the Civil Service Commission; but everyone knows that the condition to which I have referred did prevail prior to 1911. There were communities of new immigrants in those days, they had been here some three years, and that is the condtion that prevailed. The two things went side by side.


Malcolm McLean: Did that condition cease in 1911?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot say very much about that except in my own community.


Charles Avery Dunning: It operated in 1926.


Malcolm McLean: Absolutely.
M'r. BENNETT: The Minister of Railways says it operated in 1926.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend put on special homestead inspectors in 1926 and paid them for two months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad that has been mentioned. I was Acting Minister of the Interior at the time, and found that a number of special homestead inspectors had been appointed by the minister. I continued them.


Charles Avery Dunning: By what minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the Hon. Charles
Stewart, Minister of the Interior. What is more, I can give the names if the hon. gentleman will allow me sufficient time. The superintendent, was a man named Cuttle, I think.

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of them went down to Moose Jaw, I suppose that is what the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) wishes to ask about.


John Gordon Ross: No, I am going to ask about six, not one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be there were six. If my memory serves me right, three had been appointed by the minister, and they were continued because they said there were arrears of work that had to be overtaken in connection with homestead patents. But they could not carry naturalization certificates in one pocket and recommendations for patents in the other. That is the point. When the Minister of Railways says the same thing happened in 1926 he is stating what is incorrect, and he must know it to be incorrect.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I challenge him to name any case where a homestead inspector went into any community with certificates of naturalization in one hand and recommendations for patents in the other.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend a moment before was speaking about a homestead inspector having it in his power to make a recommendation as to whether or not an individual should get 160 acres of land. I say that men were put on specially in 1926, when my hon. friends were in power, in order to exercise that power to the full for political purposes.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more the Minister of Railways does the same old trick. He heard my statement perfectly well, that prior to 1911 homestead inspectors went into settlements of aliens with applications for naturalization in one hand and in the other recommendations for patents for homesteads, and he said the same thing prevailed in 1926. I say no; they had no power after 1914 to do that.


Malcolm McLean: I asked if that condition continued after 1911 till 1914, and the hon. leader of the opposition was dealing with my question in relation to his own district. It was then that the Minister of Railways got into the discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend spoke of the condition in Moose Jaw. The three men who were temporarily appointed
in Moose Jaw were dismissed, and six new men were put on in their place. One of them never made a report on any homestead entry throughout the whole time he was supposed to be engaged on such work; instead, he used the money to travel around constituencies in southern Saskatchewan for political purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right. Now having
heard the question of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, it reminds me of the mounted police brought from Toronto to Regina in 1925 to vote for the government,


Malcolm McLean: What about the mounted police sent from Regina to the Klondike?


Richard Bedford Bennett: An officer was sent from
Regina to the Klondike upon the recommendation of Commissioner Starnes. It is there in black and white and I saw it with my own eyes.


John Gordon Ross: Were there any others?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot say; I do not
know. Let us get down to the Naturalization Act again. I confess to having a great interest in this matter. Prior to 1911 I travelled considerably throughout western Canada to ascertain what had been done under our Naturalization Act. I did not confine myself to the province of Alberta; I went to Saskatchewan. I went into districts that had been settled by men who came from lands outside the British Empire and I found that these men had been naturalized. I found also that they had no knowledge of either English or French. I was quite anxious about the act of 1914, and I am free to say that I discussed the matter not only with my own party leaders but with other gentlemen who were vastly more interested in the welfare of Canada and of the British Empire than they were in the political fortunes of their own party. And there are, strange as it may sound, such gentlemen on the Liberal side in this country. They were vastly more interested, I say, in this matter than they were in their own political welfare, and so when the question came before the House of Commons embodying this legislation that had been decided upon, Sir Wilfrid Laurier congratulated the then Minister of Justice. Mark you, Sir Wilfrid Laurier who was dealing with the matter, after the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty had made his speech, following that gentleman immediately, pointed out that the matter had been engaging the attention of successive governments and that he was very glad that they had been able to get the legislation

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
through. Mr. Martin-later Chief Justice Martin-also spoke after Mr. Macdonald of Pict.ou had addressed the house. Let me quote the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
I am sorry that I was called away during the very interesting address of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, and that, therefore, I missed part of what he said. The chief object of this bill is to deal with the effect of the certificate of naturalization which is given in any one of the dominions of the empire. At present we have the power to grant naturalization letters to an alien, but the effect of them is limited to our own country. This has always been considered to be a very serious objection to the law. A very obvious illustration, one which has been quoted more than once in this house-[DOT]
Here he discussed the case of a man who gets married, and proceeds:
That is very important legislation, which has been in contemplation for many years, and I am very glad that my hon. friend has at last achieved the making of these provisions.
These were the views of the great Liberal leader of that time in connection with this legislation. Again, I was going to ask the one question which I think must appeal to the Secretary of State: How is he to be informed in order to exercise hi3 discretion? It is admitted that be can do it only in one of two ways, either directly by going himself, or indirectly by sending someone else. And whom have we sent heretofore? The judges of the country.


George Washington McPhee: How is the Secretary of State in South Africa or New Zealand or Australia informed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am suggesting that there is another way of doing it, namely, by the production of evidence from two witnesses, naming and describing them in terms'. But we thought it easier and simpler, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier recognized, that the judges should determine whether or not the conditions' imposed by the statute had been observed. What are these qualifications? They are these three-let hon. members bear them in mind: residence, character, language. Residence of five years, good character, and, lastly, an adequate knowledge of either English or French.


George Washington McPhee: These remain in the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But how does the Secretary of State satisfy himself in the matter? Can any homestead inspector or any member of the mounted police satisfy himself, as well as a judge can, of the question of residence?


George Washington McPhee: An affidavit does it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the man must appear in person before the judge.


Samuel William Jacobs: Sometimes they say that truth can be found even in an affidavit.
|Mr. BENNETT:	I have not practised
among the class of persons to whom that remark applies. The man, I say, appears in person; that is the essential thing. In South Africa, my hon. friend from Yorkton says, he does not apear in person; in the gazette notice is given to the world, and two persons by affidavit give their evidence, and in addition to that there is another certificate required. Thereafter the minister may act. At the present time in Canada what happens? The judge makes his report. If hon. gentlemen have ever attended a court in this country and witnessed naturalization proceedings they will appreciate the importance of the question, Hon. gentlemen of the legal profession have no doubt done so.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is a most perfunctory thing. The evidence is supplied by the mounted police, and it can be supplied under the new legislation. The party can go before a mounted police officer and make affidavit, and the officer can find out whether he can speak English or French. The whole thing is sent to the Secretary of State, avoiding the cost of appearance before the court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says that the applicant goes before the mounted police. Is it any more difficult to go before a judge?


Samuel William Jacobs: The mounted police officer visits him at his house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it is a peripatetic court that visits the applicant?


Samuel William Jacobs: Precisely. That is what is done, in Montreal at any rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot think that in Montreal the Secretary of State is issuing certificates in regard to which there is no judicial recommendation.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not at all. But I say that the information which the judge obtains is obtained largely from the mounted police.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, as to character.


Samuel William Jacobs: The man appears before the judge, who looks at him. How can the judge tell what kind of character he has by merely looking at him?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If this is to be an experience meeting I will give my experience. Within the last eighteen months I have witnessed the proceedings with respect to an application. The man appeared in court, having given his notice. It took place in the supreme court. The judge tested his ability to speak in either English or French, putting

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
various questions to him. He admitted that he knew no French, stating where he had come from. The judge then tested his knowledge of English. He went further. He inquired as to the man's attitude towards government: he asked him whether he knew anything of the Bolshevik movement, the man having come from Russia. Certain other questions were also asked as to what the man read, his literature, the documents he had been receiving, what people had visited him, and so forth. The judge took a great deal of pains in the matter. He then had evidence given, by affidavits, it is true, although the parties were there to be called, if necessary, as to character. Then the question of residence was considered, evidence being given not only by the man himself but, as well, by others. The judge made his report. It was quite apparent that the applicant in one case-there were several of them-had no knowledge of English or French and the judge declined to make the recommendation. That is my recollection of what occurred.


Samuel William Jacobs: How could the judge converse with him?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The court interpreter
was there.


Samuel William Jacobs: That gave the thing away at
once.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, this idea of railroading British citizens through-using the term railroading in the sense in which it was employed by an hon. gentleman in this house yesterday-is something to be deprecated. Hon. gentlemen may regard this matter lightly as something to be treated casually. For my part it is the most serious question we have considered this session or shall have considered for years to come. That at any rate is my personal view. The hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) may be fortunate in coming from a city, but I put this to him: If British citizenship is worth anything why should not the man in Montreal be prepared to go to the court?


Samuel William Jacobs: Why have two forums?
Either go before a judge and get naturalized or obtain naturalization from the Secretary of State. But why two jurisdictions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Secretary of State
can grant it only if he refers the matter to a judge. But at his discretion, in extraordinary cases, he may grant it without such a reference. And it may be that cases which so eminent a lawyer as my hon. friend urges the Secretary of State to treat as extraordinary are so treated. But that comes back to the point I am making, that the matter be-56103-162
comes a political question, which it ought not to be. The hon. member has proved it now, in his own experience.


Samuel William Jacobs: I may tell "my hon. friend
that when I sat on the other side of the house I used practically the same arguments as he is now advancing, though not so volubly. I pointed out that I had no confidence in the Secretary of State under any Conservative government, and consequently I would vote against the legislation. Since that time I have changed my mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I must say that
since the hon. gentleman is so frank I am satisfied when the people of this country read his observations they will be a unit in opposition to this present legislation.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think I owe it to my
hon. friend to say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot think my hon.
friend owes it to himself or to the Secretary of State to say it, because I cannot think it highly creditable to either. But let us go a step further. The hon. gentleman has said that he is going to substitute homestead inspectors or mounted police or some other source of information for the courts. If he is not going to do it himself who is going to do it for him?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Since my hon. friend did not speak on the second reading, I was endeavouring to let him present his argument as much as possible in an orderly manner and without interruption. If it is so desired, later on I will explain fully the machinery of the department, but I would remind my hon. friend that now in every case the Secretary of State makes inquiry, and it has often happened that, although the courts have recommended a certificate, or in the language of Chief Justice Meredith have not thought it their duty to oppose an application, on our own information we have refused to grant the certificate. In many cases we have proved harder to satisfy than the courts as to the qualifications of applicants, and my hon. friend from Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) made a good point a moment ago when he said that when the court desires to have a naturalization case heard, it appeals to us for evidence. We produce our own evidence before the court, which is a rather extraordinary proceeding, but I would point out that in a number of cases the courts have railroaded through twenty-five or fifty naturalization cases in a few moments, simply disregarding the hearing of them because they take it for granted that we will inquire into them and do our own work.

2556	COMMONS
Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: The judges of the community where I live do not treat these cases in that way, but it is possible that my hon. friend is right so I must accept his statement.
My position is simply this, and I have concluded:	You have your principle, which is
universal throughout the empire, varied only by the offijcial languages of the country in which the application is made. You have your procedure, which varies from declarations and affidavits to notices in gazettes and newspapers supported by witnesses in courts or by declarations, but in any event evidence which satisfies |the minister and upon which he acts. Heretofore in this country we have said that the evidence upon which the minister must act is the judicial report plus independent inquiries. We are now abrogating the provisions with respect to judicial inquiries; we are wiping them out entirely and making it unnecessary for the applicant to attend in court. We are doing away with the publicity which attaches to that, appearance in court, and I would remind hon. gentlemen that in the United States a great deal of importance is attached to that appearance. If any hon. members have seen an application for naturalization in an United States court they will remember the ceremony which is gone through, the reverence and love for the flag, teaching Americanism right on the threshold of the application. The way in which this is done is most astounding; the flag is sometimes produced and an explanation is given by the judge; there is the appearance of the applicant and of the two witnesses. Then in the morning papers there will be a heading, "New citizens made", with a full announcement of the proceedings.
As the bill now before us stands, practically all the safeguards which exist in other countries are done away with, because in most the procedure is provided by statute as distinguished from the mere whim of the minister. My friend the Secretary of State has commanded the confidence of the hon. member for Cartier, but it is not the individual of whom we are speaking; it is the office as such. With the pressure of business and with the other difficulties in the way, how is the minister able to review these matters? Very often it gets down to being done by some clerk, who produces the file and says, " It is all ready to sign " and the minister signs it. I ask the minister here and now how many of these files he has read through since assuming office; if he has read them through, he is the only minister to have done so within my knowledge. What happens at present is that the testimony is placed
[Mr. Rinfret.J
on file together with the judicial report, but as it is intended to amend the act that will be the case no longer. Some clerk will determine the question of naturalization in this country by reading those reports. WThat usually happens is that the judge may recommend that a man should not become naturalized, in which case the application is not granted. Or perhaps the judge recommends that a man should become naturalized; this recommendation is supported by testimony from the police and other officials stating that his character is all right, and that ends the whole matter. The second essential, a knowledge of French or English, is where most applications fall down; there has been no adequate inquiry with respect to that matter. Hon. members will remember the letter from Chief Justice Meredith, in which he said these men were illiterate and had no knowledge of our language at all. He is an eminent judge and his duty was clear; he should have said, " No, I cannot recommend this application because there has not been compliance with one of the three conditions." Each of these requirements is equally important; it must be remembered that there is no distinction between them. Whenever anyone meets a man or woman-not so much in the case of women, who do not become naturalized so frequently-under thirty-five years of age, or for the sake of argument we will say thirty-seven or forty years of age, who has become naturalized but who cannot speak either English or French, then the law has been disregarded. You cannot get away from that fact; the law has been disregarded, and because of that fact I have ventured to bring this matter so strongly before the committee. I say this is not the time to relax the safeguards which we have had set up as matters of procedure ever since, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, we have dealt with naturalization at all, in order that each one of these requirements should be dealt with in accordance with the demand made by Chief Justice Meredith when he said, " I sought for guidance from the Secretary of State, but I did not get it." That is the way he put it, as the minister will remember. Chief Justice Meredith asked for some ruling as to what principle should govern in settling these matters, and the ruling is so simple; the Secretary of State should send a circular to all judges stating that under the provisions of the act they are called upon to determine whether or not the applicant has complied with the three conditions by which he may obtain British citizenship: First, has he resided five years in Canada, as provided by the statute; second, has he an adequate knowl-

Naturalization Act
edge of the English or French language, and third, has he a good character? If the judge cannot report upon these questions it is his duty to sit until he is able to secure such evidence as may be necessary to enable him to make a proper recommendation.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would like to say a word at this stage with reference to the point of order which I raised some time ago, and in so doing I would refer to rule 297. In explanation I would say that my request to my hon. friend for information while he was reading was made courteously and was not intended to embarrass him in any way. I simply put the question as a matter of information for myself. As usual, my hon. friend was posing as a great authority on the subject under discussion, and on this subject I accept him as an authority although I do not take him at his own valuation very often. When he was reading with reference to the . law of South Africa I asked him as to what were the language qualifications there demanded, and I assumed that he would inform me that a knowledge of the Dutch language would be a qualification. As I said a moment later, my mind was running upon the peculiar anomaly which arises there in connection with British citizenship.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is referring to a point which he raised and which has been settled by the chairman.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Power):: I
assume that the Minister of Railways is not really discussing the point of order but is taking part in the debate on the bill before the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: I intend to refer to the rule which I quoted, but I am now making an explanation of the circumstances which caused the point of order to be raised, and I think I am entitled to do so.


John Frederick Johnston: If the hon. gentleman
wishes me to give a decision on the point of order I would direct his attention to the fact that I was not in the chair at the time the incident occurred and have no knowledge of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I assure you I shall not
embarrass you, Mr. Chairman. I asked the hon. leader of the opposition if he would please explain the language qualifications in the South African law, because that does raise one factor in connection with British citizenship, or rather the status of a British subject, that in South Africa a man who can speak only Dutch may become a British subject, but the same man could not become a British 56103-162J
subject in Canada under our law; and conversely a man who in Canada could speak only the French language can, under our law, become a British subject with citizenship throughout the empire, but the same man could not be naturalized in South Africa. That is w'hat my hon. friend described as a senseless observation on my part. I just call that to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, and then refer you to rule 297 in which the following words appear:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
Mr. Chairman, you were not in the chair;
I shall not press the point of order. If my hon. friend the leader of the opposition regards his treatment of me in that instance as courteous, I leave it entirely with him; only I do point this out, that he may, if he wishes, adopt the bullying tactics of a prosecuting counsel toward those on his own side, but we on our side intend to stand up for ourselves and take advantage of all the rights we have as members of this house.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I would like to say
a few words in regard to this bill. It seems to me that it will not appeal to the people of British Columbia, neither will it appeal to the government of British Columbia which of course is of Liberal character at the present time.


Malcolm McLean: Does the hon.
member pretend to speak for the British Columbia government?


William Garland McQuarrie: Well, I think I have
grounds for saying what I have already stated.


Malcolm McLean: Does the hon.
gentleman mean the McBride government?


William Garland McQuarrie: As I see it now, this
bill will place in the hands of the Secretary of State, or perhaps in the hands of some deputy of his, the right to give naturalizations which are at present being refused on the recommendation of the judges of the courts of British Columbia. I do not care to go into details, but I make this general statement that certain judges of the courts of British Columbia have refused to recommend the naturalization of certain Japanese applicants, on the grounds stated by them in their reports to the Secretary of State.
I have here a return which was brought down the other day by the Prime Minister.
2S58
Naturalization Act

sessional paper No. 219, a return to an address to the House of Commons dated the 12th March, 1928; and in this return I find a letter from the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia to the Secretary of State, in which he discusses at some length problems relating to Japanese in Canada, and among other things he says this:
Some of the judges of this province have in the case of applications of Japanese subjects for naturalization refused to recommend such applications. This attitude on the part of these judges has the approval of the government of this province and for the reasons, inter alia, stated by this province at the recent Dominion-provincial conference, I understood from you that your judgment was not favourably considering the applications of Japanese for naturalization and had not been doing so for some time. I would like to have an official .statement on this point.
Now, as I understand it, the Under Secretary of State has taken the very opposite stand, and has stated in no uncertain manner his objection to the course followed by certain of the county court judges in British Columbia on this subject. The attorney general goes on to say:
It has been stated, and I am inclined to think correctly, that Japanese are still surreptitiously coming into this province, in particular I have been advised that they come into the province at out-of-the-way points on the coastline from small Japanese vessels coming to our coast. You will understand the difficulty of detecting any such silent invasion. It is extremely hard for the white man to distinguish one Japanese from another. There is to the^ white man a very great similarity in their individual appearance.
I have good reason for belief that there has been a traffic among Japanese in naturalization certificates; in fact it is openly stated that a Japanese who has been naturalized in this country never dies. What is meant is that his certificate is simpy handed on and it is wellnigh impossible under the present system to detect the illicit use of such certificates. I have long been of the opinion that your department should give serious consideration to a new system in the issuing of naturalization certificates. I cannot see why any applicant for citizenship in our country should refuse, for instance, to attach his finger print to a copy of the naturalization certificate to be filed with your department at Ottawa and to the original certificate to be delivered to him. It would be necessary that the finger print should be attached to a filed copy, as otherwise the print on the copy given to the person naturalized could be blurred or smudged so as to render it difficult to use it for identification purposes. I am of the opinion too that no applicant for naturalization in this province should object to the attaching of the photograph of himself in a non-detachable way to the original certificate and to the copy on file with your department. It is true that finger prints and photographs are frequently thought of together in connection with police identification work, but in so important a matter as the naturalization of an alien why should the 
adopting country hesitate for a moment to take the most careful precautions to ensure that the privileges which it is extending will not be violated? Mere sensitiveness is not a sufficient excuse for the adopting country to open the door to fraud. Not alone that, but the safeguards I have suggested are obviously' in the interest of the new naturalized persons. In what I have said in this connection I would like it clearly understood that I am not derogating from the position of this province with respect to the naturalization of Japanese. The safeguards that I urge should in my opinion be made applicable in every case of naturalization.
Now I think that it is clear from the contents of that letter that the government of the province of British Columbia will not be very well satisfied if any of the safeguards surrounding the granting of naturalization, particularly to the oriental, are removed.
The judges in British Columbia, so far as I am aware, are very careful in hearing applications for naturalization. They insist on seeing the individual, and I think it is very necessary that the applicant should appear in person before someone who is going to recommend or decline to recommend his naturalization. What will happen if this bill goes through? The Under Secretary of State will issue the naturalization certificate; it will no doubt be signed by the Secretary of State or some higher authority, but to all intents and purposes the certificates will be issued by the Under Secretary of State who is in Ottawa. What does he know about an applicant who resides in British Columbia or in any of the other provinces, or anywhere not close to Ottawa? He knows nothing about him and apparently no provision is made which, in my opinion, will take the place of the investigation which is now made by county court judges in connection with these applications.
The matter of identification is important and that subject has been discussed in this house on previous occasions. It was recommended 'by several members on this side that there should be some method of positively identifying holders of naturalization certificates. That is important in all cases, but more particularly is it so in the case of orientals, because the ordinary white man cannot tell one Chinese from another or one Japanese from another.


Samuel William Jacobs: How can the judges tell? Have they taken a special course in that regard?	'


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not say that they can always tell, but my hon. friend will remember that the judges are hearing original applications. Why my hon. friend should raise that point in connection with the judges is

Naturalization Act
more than I can understand. The Attorney-General of British Columbia suggested finger prints and photographs. A photograph is not a positive identification in every instance, but a finger print is, and if these naturalization certificates had the finger prints of the applicants on them there would never be any chance of dispute, when a man was found with that certificate in his possession, whether he was the man to whom the certificate had been granted or not. I know the objection raised to 'that course, I think in particular by the Chinese consul general. He said: Why, you will place us in the criminal class; finger prints are taken when a man is arrested and if you insist on having finger prints on naturalization certificates, that is a reflection upon the orientals. That is not our stand at all. We say: Let the finger prints be put on the naturalization certificate in every case, whether oriental or otherwise, and then you will always have such a positive identification there will be no opportunity for dispute. The finger print system has become a science and once you have a man's finger print you may be sure of his identity. It would be a great mistake to do away with the application and hearing before a county court judge, because if that were done the whole thing would become a mere matter of form; certificates of naturalization would go through as a matter of course unless some reason was urged against the issuance of them, and in most cases there would be no opportunity at all for filing objections. It would therefore be a great mistake to pass this bill and I entirely agree with the views which have been expressed by my honourable leader.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am in favour of the legislation as proposed by the Secretary of State. I cannot say that even the eloquent remarks of the leader of the opposition have convinced me that he is correct. My Chief objection to the act as it now stands is that there are two jurisdictions to which an applicant must resort, that is to say, the court and the Secretary of State as a sort of court of appeal. That does not seem to me to be good sense. The Secretary of State as representing the government declares what their policy is with regard to naturalization. That must always be a matter of governmental policy. As I understand it the purpose of having a judge pass upon the application is purely that of identification. I assume that if this bill is enacted into law we are not going to abolish identification altogether and that there will be someone who will take the place of the judge on this question of identification.


Mr. BOYS:: Why does my hon. friend suggest that appearance before a judge is just for identification?


Samuel William Jacobs: What else is it for?
Mr, BOYS:	The judge examines the applicant most carefully. I have been present over and over again at sessions in my constituency and have heard the examinations.


Samuel William Jacobs: What does he pass uponcharacter, ability to talk either of the two languages, and residence? Any official of the government can pass upon that as well as a judge and he will do it in exactly the same way.


William Alves Boys: I asked my hon. friend why
he confined the matter to identification? In my constituency a judge puts an applicant through an examination lasting from ten to fifteen minutes and at the end of that time the judge will certainly know whether he has an adequate knowledge of English or French as the case may be. He also questions him most carefully as to residence, how long he has been in a certain place, his business and so on. I do not recall a single case-and I have seen more than a hundred-where the questioning of the judge has taken less than ten to fifteen minutes and with the applicant appear two persons resident in his town who also give evidence as to his character, his sojourn in the place he is supposed to come from, his knowledge of language and so forth.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it necessary to have a
knowledge of law and to be on the bench in order to ascertain those facts?


William Alves Boys: I am not suggesting that. I
am merely saying that the judge is an impartial tribunal who ought to be able to do and who, I think, practically always does justice to the case.


Samuel William Jacobs: No person is suggesting that the judge is not impartial in these cases, but T think the procedure is quite unnecessary. At present, as my hon. friend perhaps knows-T do not know whether it applies in his constituency-in the city from which I come-practically all the information is handed im by the mounted police who are in charge of that department.


William Alves Boys: We have nothing of the kind.


Samuel William Jacobs: Probably because in a small town every person knows every person else, but in a large city of more than a million people the situation is quite different. The party appears before a judge and produces some proof as to his residence, if that is necessary. Then there is some proof as to character. I do not care how despicable a man may be he will always get a couple of people, if it be only his wife and son, to testify that his character is good. Then there is the final question about his ability to speak
Naturalization Act

English or French. I know the leader of the *opposition insisted strongly upon knowledge of *one of the languages being a sine que non, that without it no person could become a British citizen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that the statute
so states.


Samuel William Jacobs: I agree with my hon. friend, that is the statute. On the other hand, I suppose it is quite apparent to my hon. friend and the members of this house, that probably four-Jfifths of the population of the British Empire can speak neither English nor French. I .merely mention this to illustrate the unwisdom of a provision of this kind.


Malcolm McLean: And yet they
all full British subjects?	*


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, they are British subjects in every part of the world.


Mr. MANION:: We are dealing with
Canada, not with India.


Samuel William Jacobs: We are not dealing with
Canada because when we give a man a certificate of naturalization it applies throughout the whole British Empire. He can say, "Civis Britannicus sum," which perhaps means more and carries more weight to-day than the old Roman, "Civis Romanus sum." As I said before, the whole thing is a question of procedure. We are even with this contemplated change within the four corners of our agreement with the British government with regard to conferring British citizenship throughout the world upon any person to whom we grant naturalization. Our citizenship applies to all parts of the British Empire. We are not changing that in any way; that is to say, the British government, the home government, is not objecting to the change which is suggested here.
As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was forced to admit, it is not necessary in all the other countries of the British Empire that the applicant must appear before a judge. He cites the case of Newfoundland, New Zealand, and other outposts of the empire, and suggested that we should govern ourselves by the law of Newfoundland or that of New Zealand. I think that we are intelligent enough, and have astuteness enough, to make our own laws for our own people. This particular law which we enacted seven or eight years ago has not been working as well as it should, according to the report of the Secretary of State, and he has been asking for a change. I would be one of the first to rush to the rescue of the British Empire, as my hon. friend the leader of the

opposition has done to-day, if I felt that the British Empire was in danger through our making this change in the law, and it is because I do not feel that it is in danger that I willingly support this bill.
As I interjected when the leader of the opposition was speaking at one time, when I was on the other side of the house I objected to the Secretary of State having anything at all to do with the granting or refusal to grant a certificate of British citizenship. I said that that power could be used as a political instrument, and that before an election the Secretary of State might have piled before him hundreds and perhaps thousands of applications, to which he would refuse to affix his signature if he felt that they came from people in certain districts who would be likely to vote against the government of which he was a member, and I said at the time that I had no confidence in the hybrid government which was then in power. But, Mr. Chairman, I have travelled farther and seen more since that time, and I have now reason to believe that no Secretary of State would undertake to do anything of that kind, whether Liberal, Conservative or Unionist, or even Progressive.


Robert James Manion: There is no greater faith, no not in Israel.


Samuel William Jacobs: There is some little faith left in Israel. It shows that sometimes association with the Gentile makes you have a little more confidence in him than you had before. For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to give this law a trial. If it is going to work the terrible havoc which the leader of the opposition predicts it will, we can amend the law. Parliament which creates a law can amend it. We are here for that purpose. If we were not amending laws here year after year, we would only need to come here once every four years to do the work of parliament, but by coming every year and amending the laws we passed the year before, we do something to earn our indemnity. I have no fear at all for the safety cf this country if this law is passed, and I think we ought to give it a trial. If we find next year or the year after that it is not working out as it should, I am sufficiently candid to get up and admit my mistake, as I do now with regard to my action eight or nine years ago, and be ready to vote for the restoration of our present law, which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition thinks is the palladium of our liberty.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Then you will be able to make your old speech over again.

Naturalization Act


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, and embellish it a little, so that my hon. friend will be able to appreciate its literary value.


James Dew Chaplin: You can change every
week.


Mr. GEARY:: The hon. member for Cartier has just cited the laws of the outposts of the empire, as he called them, of Newfoundland and New Zealand, to strengthen his argument that it is not really necessary for the applicant to go before a judge, and yet in the same breath he said that we should make laws for ourselves and not concern ourselves with what was done in the other dominions. That is precisely what we did when this act was passed in 1914. We expressly put upon that statute the procedure which should be followed before the application came to the minister for his certificate of naturalization.
The Secretary of State seems to hold the view that he may grant a certificate of naturalization directly under section 4. but that contention, I think, cannot possibly hold. Section 4 gives the qualifications which one must have before he can be granted naturalization papers, and sections 22 to 28, which are now sought to be repealed, say that the minister may grant naturalization only after a certain procedure has been followed. So no application can be made direct to the minister under section 4; it must go through the procedure authorized by the statute, that is, through the court, and from the court to the minister himself. The hon. Secretary of State says that he does not like that double jurisdiction. I should think that in an important matter of this kind, the double or checking jurisdiction of the minister, super-imposed upon the court order, is a very good thing; in fact, the minister has told us already that he has had occasion to apply that provision with very good results, and it is a very useful provision that the minister have the final say as to whether a naturalization certificate shall be granted, no matter what the court has said.
The Secretary of State has said that the intention was to give him this power, but that parliament by putting in this procedure had taken away the power from him. That cannot be. This procedure is too explicit; these provisions mean exactly what they say. The provision that the minister may grant the naturalization certificate in his own discretion is contained in section 4, it is true, but when you come to section 27, you will find that that same provision as to the minister s absolute discretion is contained in the procedure sections. So it was never intended by our
statute to do otherwise than to say, in conformity with the general agreement between the dominions of the empire and the mother country, the Secretary of State in each dominion shall actually issue the certificate of naturalization, thus standing by our bargain with the other dominions. But this parliament in 1914 said: That is not to be the sole test, but the procedure that we are now outlining in the statute is to be carried through, and carried through expressly. The Secretary of State may issue a certificate only when an application therefor has gone through the prescribed channel.
The question arises, what are we going to substitute for that, and there I think the 'Secretary of State is in difficulty. He has nebulous ideas about how the matter is to be carried out, but I judge that he will issue a questionnaire or have agents of some sort, scattered all over this dominion who will collect the information and give a certificate, the information being returned to the Secretary of State. Now can that be as good as having that information gathered and adjudicated upon by the judiciary of the country? We have a judiciary which is held in respect from east to west, and we have placed this particular question in their hands; but now the Secretary of State seeks to substitute local people, homestead inspectors, for instance, and I do not know what other classes, to deal with naturalization. I do not see how that can possibly be a change for the better.
I think there is some merit in the point mentioned by the minister, that there is a certain amount of inconvenience, particularly in the west, on the part of applicants for naturalization getting in touch with the proper officials, but surely those who have charge of the administration of the act, can facilitate applicants getting to the judge or the judge to them. It is a matter of detail and, to my mind, not of sufficient importance to offset the obligation that is upon us so to legislate that the right of British citizenship shall mean something to the person to whom it is granted, and shall be safeguarded most carefully. It entails a responsibility on him to whom it is granted, but particularly on ourselves and on Great Britain, for we have to look to Great Britain for the protection of our citizens abroad. Therefore we should not load this obligation on to the mother country without exercising the greatest possible care.
In the city from which I come many persons apply for naturalization. So far we have had no difficulty, and I think the law has worked out pretty well. By far the majority of those who seek naturalization are of the
Naturalization Act

Jewish faith. Many thousands are settled in Toronto and form no small part of our citizenship. They are shrewd, industrious, careful people. They have an instinct for commercial life, and they make their money and spend it in this country. They are never a charge upon our public institutions. That the Naturalization Act has worked out very satisfactorily can be proved by this one fact, I think. When in 1914 the call came for volunteers to fight for the country of their adoption, a very large proportion of young Jewish men, whose parents came originally from the central parts of Europe, rallied to the colours, and the troops sent out from Toronto and other Canadian points contained a very fair proportion of these young men. They went over and did their bit for the country of which they had become citizens under this law.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does that surprise my hon. friend?


George Reginald Geary: Not a bit. Equally with my hon. friend from Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) I have had the advantage of knowing those citizens very well, and being aware of their sentiments I was not a bit surprised by their patriotic stand. As the naturalization law has worked quite satisfactorily since its enactment fourteen years ago, and evidently has not resulted in the exclusion of any who are worthy to become citizens of this country, I see no reason for changing it now, especially by substituting for the judiciary men possessed of no judicial attainments, and upon whose judgment the Secretary of State must in the end rely, to some extent at least.
I do not hesitate for a moment to disagree with -the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. I .have disagreed with him-not always successfully-before this. I do not think any difficulty confronts a judge in deciding who is fit to be given naturalization papers. This simply means that the applicant must be a fit subject for naturalization, according to the regulations laid down in section four of the act. These require the judge to satisfy himself as to the applicant's length of residence in the country, his good character and his ability to express himself in one of the two official languages. So I think the Chief Justice was rather looking for trouble when he laid emphasis on this point.
On the whole, Mr. Chairman, I think the statute was drawn deliberately, with full knowledge of the procedure in the other dominions. It was the sense of the parliament of the day, it has worked well, and I cannot see that the proposed change is necessary; for there is always a danger in placing any such power in the hands of a minister 
of the government. If any other concrete difficulty had been raised, than that of distance, that is, the difficulty of an applicant appearing before a judge with his papers, I should not have given my views on the proposed amendment without a good deal more consideration. But the minister with his facility in the English language has given us a very lucid expression of his views, and the difficulty which he has pointed out fails to convince me as a sufficient reason for altering the statute. It is a difficulty that arises more particularly in the western provinces, and, in my opinion, can be overcome quite readily without any such drastic amendments as those now before us. The present procedure has worked out satisfactorily, and it does not seem to me that what the minister proposes to substitute will effect any improvement.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Mr. Chairman, I am
rather in favour of the idea of giving people greater opportunity to become naturalized; I am not altogether in favour of applicants having to appear before the judiciary; but there is a phase of the speech of the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) in which I cannot concur. Last night he said, as reported at page 2538 of Hansard:
at present we cannot act upon the application for at least three months.
When the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) asked whether under the proposed change naturalization could take place immediately, the Secretary of State answered, yes, and that it had proven rather awkward for the department when they were unable to naturalize applicants immediately. I take the ground, Mr. Chairman, that at least three months ought to elapse between the application for naturalization and its being granted. When the Secretary of State assumes that he ought to be able to grant naturalization immediately in certain circumstances, that to my mind at once opens the door for a repetition of what has happened on previous occasions just before an election. We have had officers of the different parties seek out settlers and induce them to become naturalized in order to get their votes at pending elections. I do not wish to imply that the present Secretary of State would resort to such practices, but when election time comes around no doubt pressure would be brought to bear, and he would probably have to yield and think that under the circumstances he might exercise the power to grant naturalization papers immediately.
In the main I would be inclined to support this bill, but I cannot do so unless it is provided that naturalization shall not take place

Naturalization Act
until after a certain specified time. Furthermore, when it is essential that naturalization be granted immediately, I think it ought to be done by order of the governor in council, and not by the Secretary of State, for the reasons I have already stated. I hope he will take this into consideration. I think I am not alone in the view that there ought to be a time limit within which naturalization shall not be granted, and unless such a provision is incorporated in this bill, I am afraid I cannot support it.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Adshead) has to my mind touched upon what is perhaps the weakest point in the whole legislation as proposed to-day. The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret), in bringing in the proposed amendment to the act, emphasized the fact that we are basing this law upon the naturalization laws as they exist in other parts of the British Empire. I do not think that we need necessarily copy other portions of the empire, particularly when conditions differ, as they do differ so radically, in different sections of the British Empire. For example, England at the present time is a free trade, or practically, a free trade country; and even the Liberal party in Canada does not advocate free trade on the ground that England has adopted that policy. Similarly, in different parts of the British Empire to-day, conditions are so radically different in regard to the constituent elements of population that, in my opinion, it is unnecessary that our various laws should be identical in the various parts of the commonwealth.
I made it my business this morning to look up some facts touching the subject under discussion, particularly with reference to persons, in the different parts of the empire, who speak neither English nor French-taking English and French in Canada, or English and Dutch in the case of South Africa, although I did not get any details with respect to the latter country. It will illustrate my point better than any words of mine can do, and disclose the situation exactly as it is, if I submit certain figures I have been able to obtain. I take the figures. with regard to Australia and Canada. In New South Wales the population in 1921 numbered 2,101,000. Of that population the English speaking proportion totalled 2,082,000, or 98 per cent. The whole population of Australia, including New South Wales, for the same year, is given as 5,435,000; and to my surprise the proportion of non-British-persons born neither in Australia nor in any other part of the empire-is' given as 50,000-in fact, to be precise, 45,000 odd. In other words, the population of Australia, taken as a whole, is
given as 99 per cent British and only about 1 per cent speaking other languages.


Malcolm McLean: Would those two sets of figures agree? The 2 per cent in the case of New South Wales would be 40,000, and the total for Australia is only 50,000, including the 40,000 non-British in New South Wales.


Robert James Manion: In New South Wales the number of non-British is 19,000, and for all Australia-I am not giving the figures to the last decimal-50,000 including the 19,000.


Malcolm McLean: I understood you to say 98 per cent.


Robert James Manion: I gave that figure, though I think it is higher* than that. It probably works out at 99 per cent. I took their own figures from the Statesmen's Year Book, which is a good enough authority for most of us. The total for all Australia, of British born, is 99 per cent. Taking Canada on the other hand we find that the population in this country in 1921 was 8,788,000, and of these the English, Scotch, Irish and French numbered 7,279,000. This I figured out to be, roundly, 83 per cent of the total. The others are largely Europeans, with a few Japanese and Chinese included, numbering 1.508,000, or 17 per cent. In other words, while only 1 per cent of the population of Australia is non-British we have in Canada a non-British element to the extent of 17 per cent-quite a marked difference. Because of this difference, and the difference in conditions, I say again that we need not of necessity frame our law to conform exactly to the law of Australia, for example. I might have taken similar figures in regard to Great Britain, but unfortunately I had not the opportunity to do so. I may say, however, that the nonBritish population there is also very low.
To illustrate the point further. In Canada in 1926 we gave naturalization papers to 16,917 persons, according to the report of the Secretary of State for 1927, which would cover the previous year. That is to say, naturalization was granted in Canada in the year mentioned to practically 17,000 persons. In Australia in that same year, in place of 16,917, we find that only 1,123 naturalization papers were granted, and this for the natural reason that there is a very much smaller percentage in that country of those requiring naturalization. Perhaps I had better give the figures for Australia, to show how few get naturalization there. The figures are:
Year	Number
1922		 1,353
1923		 920
1924		 964
1925		 868
1926		 1,123
Naturalization Act

Let me give some more figures to illustrate the difference in conditions as between Australia and this country. Immigration to Australia in the year 1926 totalled 105,918, and of that number 90,562, or 87 per cent, were British. Unfortunately I had not time enough to look up the figures in regard to Canada, but my recollection is that our immigration in that year would include only about 35 per cent British. There is a very small immigration into this country from France and that would be included in the 35 per cent. I fancy I am close enough, for the purpose of my illustration, when I say that about one-third of our immigration-taking the 35 per cent as a rough estimate-comprises people of British origin.
I do not wish to be misquoted or misunderstood in this matter. I have great respect- indeed, if I may say so, even affection-for these new Canadians who are coming to our country. I have lived all my life in a section where there are thousands of these "new" Canadians. This is an expression which a friend of mine uses and I rather like it. These people who come from different parts of Europe to live amongst us are admirable and in most cases their children have become very good Canadians. I have practised for upwards of twenty years among them in my profession, and many of them are friends of mine. In fact, I have a large number of friends of all nationalities-Italians, Slovaks, Greeks, Finlanders, Ukrainians, Jews, Hungarians and others from continental Europe. I repeat, they are people for whom I have a very great respect and a real friendship. And, I may add, most of them when they become naturalized vote for me. So that I am not complaining-[DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: Does that account for your affection?


Robert James Manion: Partly, I admit. Possibly I might not respect them quite so much if they did not. They have demonstrated a good brand of intelligence in voting as they do. But there is this to be remembered- and I say it after emphasizing my genuine friendship for these people; for this is not a political subject, as I have said on many occasions on different platforms. It is essential in this country of ours, that if people are to know our customs, to understand our laws and to vote intelligently they should be able to speak either English or French, one of the two official languages of Canada. I submit, therefore, that it is unwise to make naturalization so easy-as this proposed legislation would undoubtedly tend to do-as to remove the incentive for strangers from Eur-

ope and elsewhere to endeavour to acquire a knowledge of either English or French, which is imperative before they can become really good citizens. It is only common sense to expect that people coming to Canada should, before they are given the right to take part in the election of representatives, know something of one of the official languages of the country. They should at least have gained some facility in either English or French in order to understand our laws and to judge intelligently of the questions upon which they are to vote.
I also feel that it is a great privilege and even a blessing to be a Canadian citizen; I sometimes point out to my boys that one of the things for which they can feel grateful, although they had no control over it, is that they were born on the northern half of this continent. I believe it is a real blessing to any young man to know that he was born in Canada. I say this with no disrespect to those great cultured, classical countries of Europe, but I do feel that our opportunities, our broad-minded citizenship, our great advantages in every way, our resources and so on, with all the chances for a young man to go ahead, should make him grateful for having been born in Canada. In the same way I think those who receive naturalization paperj in this country have something for which they should be grateful, and they should not raise any particular objection if they have to go tc some little trouble to secure those papers As a matter of fact, I do not find that they raise objections. I have thousands of people from continenal Europe in my city, and although once in a while I have received a complaint from someone who applied a long time ago for naturalization and has not received his papers, generally speaking when I have taken it up with this government or with previous governments I have found that if a man has a right to become naturalized he generally gets his papers without much troube ; he makes his application before a judge and usually it is granted.
The Secretary of State pointed out that this act gives him absolute discretion in the issuing of these certificates, but I would suggest that he also had that absolute discretion under the present act. I will just read three lines of section 27 of the present act:
The minister may thereupon in his absolute discretion issue a certificate of naturalization and shall send the same to the clerk of the court to whom the application for naturalization was made.
So I submit that this will not give the Secretary of State any greater discretion, but

Naturalization Act
it will give him more power. I think his discretion remains the same, but in my opinion his power becomes too absolute.
Mr. R.INFRET: There might be a doubt in interpreting the section which my hon. friend has just read, but the interpretation of the Department of Justice and the rule uniformly followed in the department since 1914 is that the word "thereupon" means that the Secretary of State can exercise his discretion only if he has received a favourable report from the court. In other words, he has not discretion to consider an application when a favourable report has not been made by the court.


Robert James Manion: I do not think he should
be given that discretion. If the judges of our land are not dependable in a matter of this kind they are not dependable at all, because after all they have very serious matters with which to deal in the courts, and this is a question with which they should deal conscientiously. I do not believe the Secretary of State, either the Secretary of State of today or a secretary of state of the future from this side of the house, should be given discretion to lay aside the ruling of a judge who has had the case before him, who has met this man and discussed with him in one of the two languages of our country matters which would prove the ability of the man to speak or read intelligently of the affairs of our country.


Mr. CAHAN:: Has my hon. friend noticed
subsection 3 of section 4?


Robert James Manion: I will read this subsection,
to which my attention has been drawn:
The grant of a certificate of naturalization to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the minister, and he may, \vith 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 simply emphasizes the point I was making. However, to carry on with my argument, I do not know of any reason why there should not be a reasonable delay in granting naturalization to any new citizen of our country. I looked up the United States law to-day, and I found that in that country an alien must declare under oath, before the courts, his intention to become a United States citizen two years before he is permitted to become a citizen. If the United States are so particular that they place a man on probation for two years, surely we should be reasonably careful.


Samuel William Jacobs: The applicant must apply within three years of his entering the country, and at the end of five years he gets his papers.


Robert James Manion: But if, during those two
years, he should turn out to be a criminal or
unsuitable for citizenship for one reason or another, the opportunity to lay that fact before the proper officials in the United States is much greater than in Canada, particularly under this proposed amendment.


Samuel William Jacobs: Supposing he committed a crime after the three year period; how could you safeguard against that?


Robert James Manion: I do not follow my hon. friend. Does he mean if the applicant committed a crime during the two years of probation?


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Then they would probably refuse him citizenship, and quite rightly so.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me emphasized what I think is the weak point in the whole proposition, and that is the point to which I object: We are putting in the hands of the Secretary of State, whether of this government or of some future government, powers which would permit him to go very far. I am going to speak quite frankly; these powers would give him the opportunity, before an election for example, to enfranchise for political purposes, thousands of voters in this country who prdbably should not be enfranchised, if he were unscrupulous enough to do so, and he could probably decide a number of seats in that way. That is the danger of the whole proposition, and personally I do not want to put that power in the hands of my friend the present Secretary of State, nor do I want to put it in the hands of a Secretary of State from the Conservative party or from the Progressive party, with all due respect to their probity. I wanted to make this clear, because this is the weakness I see in the whole thing. Last night, when the minister sat down, I asked him a question, and the following remarks were made:
Mr. Manion:	Just before the minister closes
I should like to ask him a question. Under the new system how long would it take for naturalization papers to go through?
Mr. Rinfret:	There would be no definite
time; that would rest with the department.
Mr. Manion:	It could be done immediately?
Mr. Rinfret:	Yes. I thank my hon. friend
for this question, because in a certain number of cases it has proven a great inconvenience that the department has been unable to grant a certificate to qualified persons simply because of the delay of three months which is provided in the present act, and because of the necessity of referring the matter to the courts.
The minister made that very clear, and it is just what I thought he would say. By the proposed amendment, upon receiving a
Naturalization Act

hurried application from any constituency in this country-from the constituency of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, for example, although knowing him as well as I do and haying such a high respect for him I am sure he would not do anything of the kind-the Secretary of State could immediately issue a certificate. I submit that he should not have that right.


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend has singled me out, but I would point out to him that by speaking of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier he might very well mean his friend Mr. Patenaude, who was candidate in the constituency of Jacques Cartier.


Robert James Manion: He is not the member for Jacques Cartier, unfortunately. However, I did refer in a jocular way to my hon. friend-


Samuel William Jacobs: I can quite understand how that rankles in the mind of my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: I apologize to my hon. friend, as he is 'the member for Cartier not Jacques Cartier. But I think there will be no mistake as to who was meant. At any rate, I repeat that any member of this house or any candidate for membership in this house might apply for the naturalization of a group of new arrivals in this country just before election time, and I do not believe the power to immediately grant those certificates should be put in the hands of any Secretary of State, whether he is a Conservative, a Liberal or a Progressive. I do not believe human nature is so perfect that, on many occasions under the pressure of candidates running in a tight constituency, the secretary of state of one party or another would not, to put it mildly, stretch a point to grant naturalization. I well remember evil conditions in a certain district in this country, which I do not wish to name because I have no desire to reflect on someone who is gone. In that district there existed the condition described by my hon. leader this afternoon. Years ago when I was a boy I saw hundreds of men who could not speak the English language being naturalized just before an election and given a vote-for no other purpose than that of voting for the gentleman who was a candidate of the government then in power, and who counted upon getting a majority from them to take him back into office.
I do not think it is just to any secretary of state to give him this power. I warn the minister that if this act goes through and he is Secretary of State when the next election comes round he will be driven absolutely crazy by the demands of candidates in various

sections of this country to naturalize large numbers of people who cannot speak the English language, or the French language, people who at the time should not get naturalization papers. Suppose, for example, in a certain constituency, say in my own-and I do not pretend to be any better than anybody else-I am running in a tight election, and there are thousands in that constituency who have come from continental Europe. The larger number of them, we will say, cannot when they first come here speak the English language. Suppose I am unscrupulous enough to have my agent go to them and say: There is a large number of your people here; if you will vote right I will see that you get your naturalization papers at once and it will cost you nothing. Suppose that proposition is put up to a few hundred of them. We get a lot of people in our country who do not understand the language, and the proposition may be explained to them by an interpreter who gives it whatever colouring he pleases. Does my hon. friend think many of them would not accept the suggestion and do that without being dishonest? They have got away from war-ridden Europe, and most of them-those who have not gone across to the states-do want to become Canadians. There are advantages in having Canadian citizenship, and they would largely accept, with no ill feeling; and the only thing that they would be taught by my agent, in all probability, if I were unscrupulous enough to do such a thing, wTould be where they were to put the cross on the ballot. I repeat that I do not believe that power should be given to any secretary of state. We should leave the law as it is, so that the applicant for naturalization must go through the courts as he has to do now, w'ithout any great trouble. He pays, of course, a small fee.
I may add that I have had no complaints among the thousands of Europeans whom I have in my constituency. I looked, while listening to my leader, through the list of the nearly 17,000 who according to this report were granted naturalization in the last year, and I find on nearly every page someone from my own city of Fort William. I did not even know that they were getting it. In an odd case I have been approached to help them through, because for some reason they had been held up by the courts. Generally I have told them to go and- see a lawyer and he would help to get it through. Perhaps a couple of hundred or possibly twice that number in this list were from my own city of Fort W7illiam. I repeat that I wish to protest as strongly as I can against changing this lawr and putting it in the hands of a secretary

Naturalization Act
of state, whether this secretary of state or another, to grant just before an election naturalization to hundreds of thousands of people who perhaps should not be enfranchised. I submit that if that is done, if the law is changed, then within a few years, perhaps in the lifetime of the present Secretary of State or of myself, we will have a scandal which will equal that of the customs scandal of a few years ago. I hope that the Secretary of State and his government will reconsider the whole matter and leave in the courts the duty of handling it, as the courts are a fair and non-political forum.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I have frequently complained to the house and to the minister about the difficulty, the trouble and expense to which my constituents have been put in order to get naturalization. Perhaps I might explain that my district is a new one; the northern part of it is poorly served with railway facilities. These people going to the judicial centres must travel on a train which runs only three times a week. If they remain over one day at the judicial centre, they will miss the train back, and in most cases that means five days away from home and a good deal of trouble and expense.
It may be asserted that a Canadian certificate of naturalization is something which should be prized so highly that it is well worth all this trouble and expense, but the outlay of $25, $30 or $40, which it means to these people, is a great deal more than most of us here would consider. The class of whom I refer are people from the continent of Europe who have come in there without a dollar and have settled on the poorer bush homesteads, they are not people who handle very much money, and the expenditure of $25 or $30 means as much to them as perhaps a thousand dollars would to the average man within the sound of my voice. Most of them have not sufficient food or clothing in their houses, and nothing in the way of comfort, and this expenditure is something which they cannot well afford. My objection is not particularly to the fact that they must appear before a judge. In all these years, with all the complaints I have heard from these people, I have never heard one of them complain of the fact that they have been obliged to appear before a judge. I think they are satisfied so far as that is concerned, but the difficulty is in getting to the judge; and frequently, in addition to what I have already said, when they get there they find the court is postponed or their own case is set back for
another hearing, and they must repeat their journey two or three times in succession until their application is finally passed or rejected, as the case may be.


Mr. LADNER:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if there would not be the same procedure and delays if it were being done through the Department of the Secretary of State? Somebody has to be there to meet them and ask them questions, and -they have to meet somewhere.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not know what
the Secretary of State has in mind, but I think the suggestion of the mounted police going out and meeting these people would do away with a good deal of trouble. If my hon. friend will allow me to proceed, I think I can make my meaning clear in a moment. I have discussed this at intervals with the Secretary of State, who is making an honest endeavour to get around the difficulty. The fact has been referred to that the judges meet at various llocal points, and that is true; and in many of the parts where most of my people live the judge will come probably one day a year. In the village in which I reside, the judge comes but one day a year. If we could have these outstanding applications examined at that point, or at these different points on the day on which the judge is there, there would be no difficulty at all, and I would have no objection to the present law. That is what I have tried to secure and what I have discussed frequently with the Secretary of State and with the Under Secretary of State. Indeed I discussed the matter with a member of the -bench and I was told that no provision is made for the extra expenses of judges and that in most cases this would necessitate a judge remaining over another day. In my particular village the judge comes in on one train which gets there in the evening, holds court at night, finishes up his cases and goes back to the judicial centre the next morning. He will not remain over the next day because that would mean two days on account of the train service and ordinarily he refuses to examine these parties in the list of cases on his docket. I suggested to the minister that the department should provide the necessary expenses to enable the judge to remain over another day, but it was pointed out to me again that the judges are under the control of the provincial authorities and that this was something over which the Department of Secretary of State had no jurisdiction whatever.
Those are many of the difficulties that I have met in trying to get some arrangement that would be satisfactory to the people of my

Naiiirilization Act
district. Perhaps the grievance is more a question of administration than one of legislation and I think it can easily be remedied. An hon. member suggests to me that the difficulty might be met by a change in the law in regard to rural districts; that is, to provide some other machinery than the court for examinations in the rural districts and to leave the Iqw as it stands in regard to the cities. Naturally there is no expense or no difficulty for anyone applying for Canadian naturalization to appear before a judge in a city. The difficulty is, as I stated, in these remote rural districts where a trip of five or six days, perhaps repated two or three and sometimes four times, is involved. What happens very frequently when an outsider finds himself up against so many difficulties is that he simply drops the matter altogether and does not bother about it further, and it is desirable for us to induce these people to become naturalized Canadian citizens.
A constituent of mine pointed out to me the difficulty that he was up against. I think I read his letter in the house four or five years ago. He said: "I am making an honest attempt to become a naturalized Canadian citizen. I realize at the same time that the moment I take out papers of naturalization I am taking the resposibility on myself and putting the responsibility on my children, because if another war breaks out my boys are liable to be conscripted but my neighbours"-and he mentioned several-"have not bothered about the matter." In the last war these people, although they have been resident in Canada for many years, were not subject to the conscription law simply because they had not bothered to take out naturalization certificates. I am just pointing out what one of these aliens thought about the matter. He was only endeavouring to do his duty in taking out Canadian papers and it appeared to him that we were putting many stumbling blocks and difficulties in his way.
Further, I am not in favour of the present measure that we are discussing. I agree almost entirely with what the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has said; I can see the same objection, but I ask the committee to give some sympathetic consideration to those people who live in remote districts, who handle only a matter of a few dollars in a year and to whom twenty-five or thirty dollars of an expenditure means a great deal when they are short of the very necessities of life in their own homes. If some extension of funds can be made to the judges to enable

them to stop over another day at these local points throughout the judicial district, the objection will be met. Those people, as I say, have no objection to the present system so far as going before a judge is concerned. I have not heard a single complaint about that. Any man who goes to the trouble of making an application for naturalization is naturally prepared to go to some further trouble. He knows that the must comply' with certain conditions in order to secure Canadian citizenship; but as I pointed out, the difficulties are frequently so great that he gives up in disgust.
Another source of a good deal of grievance is that applicants are frequently called upon to attend court in judicial centres during the threshing season. I have found that in dozens and dozens of cases men have been summoned to appear before a judge right in the middle of threshing when they cannot possibly go. The result is that the application is cancelled, the five dollar fee is lost, and they must make out a new set of papers, pay a new fee, and go through all routine again. Therefore there are many difficulties that we ought to relieve them of so far as possible.
I agree with what the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) has said about the political influence to which the minister wiil be subjected if we allow this bill to go through in its present form. There should be some time limit during which notices should be filed in the office of the county court clerk, the post office, the provincial gazette, the local paper or somewhere else before the application can be considered; otherwise, as hon. members have said, you will simply leave the door open and subject the minister to all kinds of political influences on the eve of an election. While I have every confidence in the integrity and honesty of the present minister, if he will not give in to that sort of pressure he is more than human, he is a different type of man from the rest of us. It is not fair to the house to leave any minister subject to that pressure; it is not fair to the minister to leave the door open to subject himself or any succeeding minister to that kind of pressure, and I appeal to him to make some changes in the legislation to meet the objections which I have stated and to provide that the application shall be left on file for some reasonable time before it can be dealt with. I think the suggestion that was made by the leader of the opposition, copied from the system in use in South Africa, was a very

Naturalization Act
good one, namely, that the application should be advertised in a local paper for a matter of three or four or six months and that copies of that paper must be produced before a certificate of naturalization is granted. I appeal to the minister to take some of these matters into consideration and to alter the present legislation to meet these objections without making it as drastic in its application as the proposed amendment now before the committee.


Thomas Langton Church: I fail to see where the government has any mandate to bring in this particular legislation. I come from a district where there are six county court judges who administer the Naturalization Act well. The judges are making an application as a body for an increase in salary and in the special committee dealing with the matter further the county court judges who come from the west speak in high terms of the present statute tand its administration. For instance, Judge Jackson says that it is one of the most important parts of the judicial duties to examine applicants who come before him for naturalization and to find out if they have proper ideals of citizenship. A person may become a British subject in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. Ever since confederation the question of naturalization has caused a great deal of trouble in parliament. As I say the government has no mandate on this particular question and no complaints have been made that the act is not working out satisfactorily. It seems to me that this is a nice little gesture to certain interests in the west and that the present change is more a matter of politics and political expediency than of policy or laws. The present act as a matter of policy is an essential.' The Anglican church and the Presbyterian church represent a large body of opinion in this country. I cannot speak for them but I wish to refer to what has been said by them at their various synods and assembles. The Anglicans at the general synod at Kingston were alarmed at the aggression of foreigners in Canada and the catering to them by governments. They are beginning to doubt in view of the alarming immigration figures, whether Canada is going to continue to be a British country. Look at the situation in the United States. When President Harding found by the last census that the United States had only about 53 or 54 per cent of American-bom citizens, they decided to dose their doors to immigration from continental Europe, and they established their quota system, and that is what Canada will come to sooner or later. This country
is at the parting of the ways to-day, with the repeal of the sedition clause in the criminal code and this repeal now.
This is a political bill, Mr. Chairman, and it was never intended to be anything else. It is a nise gesture to the foreign element who go to the west and vote there. The government is not concerned over our citizenship ; it may be good, bad or indifferent. What the government is interested in is how many votes they will get out of this particular bill. We have a great many foreigners in the city from which I come, and the number is continually growing through new arrivals. The two great railways are bringing foreigners into Toronto under no known law of immigration and under the new antiimmigration law. There are a large number of applications for naturalization in the county of York every time the court of sessions meets. They have five or six county court judges, and the applicants appear before them, witnesses can be heard, and the applicants examined, if necessary, to find out whether they appreciate our citizenship and would make good citizens, and after the judge has determined upon the fitness of the applicant, a certificate is issued, and naturalization papers are granted by the government. That system has worked well, buit now it is proposed in the twinkling of an eye to change all that, and to centralize all this work in the city of Ottawa in the Secretary of State's office where no doubt the minister will gather around him a large number of government officials appointed by the Liberal party, who will see that these certificates are issued at so much per head. We know that in order to get a job to-day, even though you are a returned soldier, you have to join the Liberal ward association and pay a dollar. Is that going to be the process here, and also to obtain naturalization papers under the proposed act?
I do not wish to criticize a young minister but I fear that his department will become a huge political machine, especially around election time, for coining out these certificates of naturalization irrespective of the fitness of the applicant. The minister last night read the history of naturalization the world over from time immemorial, referring to the French system, the English system, the system in the United States and in Australia. Let me tell him that the position he gave last night as that of the United States is not the position in the United States to-day at all. The United States are tightening up their restrictions all along the line, in immigration, naturalization and colonization. They have their quota
Naturalization Act

system of immigration, and they are tightening up their naturalization system, putting the brakes on and stiffening the regulations all along the line. No matter what country you come from, once you enter the United States, you have to become an American citizen. There is only one flag and only one school there. We have to admire the American people for knowing how to make people become American citizens and respect the law and flag and their institutions. There is no catering there to the foreign way of things.
The minister also referred to Australia. I should like to refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister of Australia, in which he said that Australia is going to be kept a white man's country, that their conditions are different from those in the United States and Canada, and that they are not going to open the flood gates to European immigration. As a result of that policy on the part of Australia, Canada is losing the British immigrant. They are going to Australia and New Zealand, which are doing all the windowdressing in the old country to-day and getting the vast bulk of all immigration from the land.
Naturalization is a very live question, Mr. Chairman, and it is closely allied to the question of immigration, and the question of sedition which we were discussing the other night in this house. I am very sorry that parliament saw fit to remove the provision we had on the statute book with regard to sedition. There is a large body of public opinion in this country that is opposed to any changes being made in that act, and I know that many Liberals as well were opposed to repealing that provision.
This bill we have before us will mean that all the work of naturalization will be centered in the city of Ottawa, and the Secretary of State will have power to decide who shall become naturalized and who shall not. It will simply mean the building up of a huge political machine for the issuing of certificates of naturalization, just as the customs service was a political machine in the old days. Agents of the government in all the large centres from Vancouver to the Atlantic seaboard will be issuing certificates of naturalization in a haphazard way just before election time, with no regard for maintaining our citizenship at its present standard, and we will have instead of county court administration as now, a political administration. I should like to refer to an article that was written to the Toronto Globe yesterday by a great bishop of the Anglican church, who would no doubt be criticized here because he

stands four-square for the British Empire. I refer to Bishop Lloyd, of Saskatoon. He protests against any change being made in this act. Then, in addition, we have the opinion of the county court judges that the present act is working admirably and should not be removed from the statute books, especially at this time owing to the unrest in the country, and with so many foreigners entering Canada. If Canada is going to remain a British country, we want a British immigration policy, and we should not be wiping off the statute book acts that are for the preservation and protection of our citizenship. If Canada is not going to continue to be a British country, let us know. I wish to protest against the repeal of the provision regarding sedition, and protest also against repealing these sections of the Naturalization Act which have worked out admirably.
Furthermore, it will cost hundreds and thousands of dollars to enforce this act, and in the end it will be a mere farce, because certificates will be handed out just as they used to hand out script years ago, and the result will be that the quality of our citizenship will be lowered. Coming from a city in which there is a large number of foreigners, applying for naturalization at the general sessions for York where the Naturalization Act is working out very well, according to the opinion of the county court judges, I protest against the changes that are being made in this bill.


Leon Johnson Ladner: This measure is so important and so far-reaching in its effects, not only upon the present population of Canada, but upon the many thousands who are coming and will come into this country, that it warrants the dose scrutiny and study of every member of this house. Not only that, the measure is of such a nature that I think it warrants the condemnation of every member of this house. I have a very considerable respect and regard for the ability and sincerity of the hon. minister who introduced this measure, but in considering a measure of this kind we must have regard to its effect upon the community as a whole. After all, the real point of contention in the bill is the elimination of the courts from deciding upon the qualifications of an applicant for citizenship, and replacing that authority with agents appointed by the Secretary of State, who will be empowered to determine the qualifications of the applicants for citizenship. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is the pith of this measure.
What are the reasons for this proposed change? Where is the public demand for such

Procedure in Divorce Bills
a fundamental departure from our course of procedure in relation to naturalization? Throughout his whole speech the Secretary of State has not indicated that there is any such demand. His chief arguments are centred around the inconvenience to which some applicants for naturalization are subjected. The minister informs us that representations have been made to him in this respect. I have read his speech carefully and annotated his arguments and reasons for this proposed change. They are six in number. First, the distance from the court of the applicant, and his expense in getting there. That condition prevails only in a very small portion of the Dominion, relatively speaking. I venture to say that if the figures were available it would be found that fully 95 per cent of those applying for citizenship are not handicapped by that difficulty. Second, the sudden adjournment of the court and the necessity of the applicant's returning in order to renew his application. I submit in all fairness that this is an exceptional case. It is not usual for our courts to adjourn suddenly when there is still business to be attended to. Third, the courts sit too infrequently, and attendance has to be made at inopportune times, when the applicants are harvesting or trapping. Again I say those occasions are very limited. The great majority of our courts sit at regular intervals, applicants are given ample notice in advance, and can arrange their affairs so as to be present. Fourth, the lack of uniformity of procedure and unanimity of judgment in determining the qualifications of applicants. With respect to this point, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can complete my remarks between now and six o'clock.
At six o'clock the Deputy Speaker resumed the chair, and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I desire to ask the unanimous consent of the house to move the following motion:
That Bill No. 57, an act respecting the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company, placed on the order paper for consideration from 8 to 9 p.m. on Tuesday, the first day of May, 1928, be given precedence over other bills.


Thomas Langton Church: There must be unanimous
consent in order to have this motion entertained. I object; there are other bills more important than this one.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion can, of
course, be entertained only by unanimous consent.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand that, Mr. Speaker.


John Frederick Johnston: There is therefore no point in putting the motion.



OLIVE DRUKER

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 150 for the relief of Olive Druker-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Thomas Langton Church: I move that the bill be
reported.


John Frederick Johnston: In this case there is a proposed amendment. The hon. member's motion cannot therefore be entertained.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is it at this stage,
Mr. Chairman, that I move my amendment? I think it is on the third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I object to the passing of this bill. On the third reading I desire to move an amendment.
Bill reported.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Anderson moves that Bill No. 150, for the relief of Olive Druker, be now read the third time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In accordance with a notice of motion given the other day I move the following amendment:
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it as follows:-
1.	That section one of the bill be amended by adding the following words thereto:-
"and the said Olive Hawkes shall have the custody of their child, and the said Maurice Druker shall pay annually to Olive Hawkes, for her support and maintenance, the sum of five hundred dollars, so long as she remains unmarried; and the sum of two hundred dollars annually for the support and education of their child."
2.	That the following section be added to the said bill:-
"3. The said Maurice Druker shall not have the right to marry again, and if he goes

Procedure in Divorce Bills

through any form of marriage, he shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to seven years' imprisonment, and such marriage shall be null and void."
The other evening I stated my purpose in selecting several of these bills for discussion. In this particular case I am quite willing that the applicant should be granted the divorce, but my purpose is to impress upon the house the necessity of establishing a divorce court in which such matters can be properly attended to. I think it is abundantly evident, from the proceedings of the last few private members' days, that we are not treating these divorce cases in the manner in which they ought to be treated. In order to indicate some of the principles which it would seem to me should be considered in a case of this kind, I chose two test cases. One, introduced the other evening, was a case in which there was involved the custody of the child as well as alimony to the woman; and also in which both individuals were diseased, and I urged that they should not be given the right to marry again so long as this diseased condition continued.
We have in this particular bill still another condition by reason of which I urge that the man should not be granted the right to remarry. I may say that since bringing up this matter in the house I have received a considerable number of communications on the subject. I should like to read a paragraph or so to indicate the state of public opinion in this regard. I quote first from a letter received from a lawyer in western Ontario :
The House of Commons seems to have got the idea that the Ontario divorce court bill sponsored by Mr. A. N. Smith in the commons, is merely a bill for the relief of the senate. In fact it is for the relief of hundreds of people who are too poor to ever get their troubles to the senate. There is a most pitiful cry of the poor of this province for this relief, a low almost inarticulate cry, as is usual -with the cry of the poor, for that chance of le-establisliing homes which the people of the western provinces have.
1 have another letter from a poor woman in Detroit who had read in the newspapers concerning the action taken in this house. From this letter I will extract one paragraph.
I see that you are asking that a man should be made to support his wife and children, also that he be a fit man to marry again. I am a Toronto girl, born and raised there; if there had been such a law I would not be the unhappy woman I am to-day.
Cases of this kind could be multiplied, and I know that every one of these cases means a tragedy in the home life of some couple.
It has been said that an amendment such as I am introducing might be considered

ultra vires, but I would point out that the British North America Act very clearly gives to the Dominion parliament control over marriage and divorce, and I take it that that would apply to everything pertaining to marriage and divorce. Further when divorces were first granted in Canada provision was made for the custody of the children and for the payment of alimony, and as far as I have been able to learn the constitutionality of such action never has been challenged. The other evening I read from the Campbell case of 1879, and to-night I venture to repeat one of the paragraphs from the argument by Senator Miller:
Under the British North America Act the legislation in regard to civil rights is given exclusively to the local legislatures, but it cannot be controverted, I think, that when the parliament of Canada has exclusive power to deal with any subject of legislation, that so far as it is necessary to deal with civil rights in connection with such legislation, we have the undoubted power to deal with them, where this parliament has the right to legislate on any subject it must be considered that we have the power to legislate regarding all matters incident to that subject.
I do not wish to develop the legal argument any further; I do not think it necessary. Again, however, it has been claimed by some that the action contemplated in my amendment would be outside the terms of the petition, and that therefore it should not be accepted by this house. I would point out that the last paragraph of the petition carries a standard clause, as follows:
Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your honourable house may be pleased to pass an act dissolving the said marriage between your petitioner and the said Maurice Druker and enabling your petitioner to marry again, and granting your petitioner such further and other relief in the premises as to your honourable house may seem meet.
So if we chose to provide for the custody of the child or if we chose to order the payment of alimony' undoubtedly these matters come within the terms of the petition. Aside from that, however, I urge that we have the right to grant divorce on whatever terms are considered advisable by this parliament. There is no limitation to our powers in that regard. It would require a very strong argument indeed to prove that we have no such right.
With regard to this particular case I would point out that the courts of Ontario have already granted the custody of the child as well as alimony, so it might be claimed it is not necessary that we should take action in this regard. However, this case suits me all the better because the courts of Ontario have taken action along these lines, as after all I am introducing this amendment to determine the principle at stake. As I said the

Procedure in Divorce Bills
other evening, if this amendment had been drawn with legal care perhaps we should have inserted a provision as to how the money should be paid; perhaps we should have included penalties for the non-payment of the money. Undoubtedly we should have been able to go more fully into the question as to whether or not these sums suggested are sufficient to provide for the maintenance of the wife and child. I said the other evening that the figures which I suggested were quite arbitrary, because it is quite obvious that we have not before us in this committee or in the house sufficient evidence concerning all the circumstances of the case to know how much should be set aside for the maintenance of the wife and child. Again that is simply an illustration of the necessity for this sort of thing being attended to by a court, where full investigation could be made with regard to all these matters.
There is a second part to my amendment. Ism trying to make provision for the wife and child, and I am also suggesting that the man be not given the right to marry again. I know that the bill before us explicitly gives the woman the right to marry again, and as I said earlier I am quite willing that this should be done. It does seem to me, however, that with this evidence before us we must hesitate to inferentially give this man the right to marry again. In the preamble of this bill as passed by the senate I read the following:
Whereas Olive Druker, residing at the city of London, England, wife of Maurice Druker, manager, who is domiciled in Canada and formerly resided at the city of London, in the province of Ontario, has by her petition alleged that they were married on the sixteenth day of September, A.D. 1924. at the city of London, England, she then being Olive Hawkes, a spinster; and whereas by her petition she has prayed that, because of sodomy committed by him since then, their marriage be dissolved; and whereas the said marriage and the said sodomy have been proved by evidence adduced and it is expedient that the prayer of her petition be granted: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
We have that preamble before us as the basis on which we are granting this woman a divorce, and I submit that we should hesitate to grant the privilege of remarriage to a man who has so cruelly mistreated his wife and who has committed a crime for which he is liable to life imprisonment. Are we going to tell this man he can go scot free and leave him in a position to abuse another wife? I would hope that the time might come when, in cases of sexual perversion of this kind, there might be some sort of surgical operation, which will 56103-163J
provide for such cases better than we are able to do under our present legislation, but until such time arrives I submit that we are hardly justified in turning such a man loose. So without arguing the case at greater length, I would urge, that in this bill we incorporate each of the provisions, to which I have referred, namely, that the wife be given custody of the child, that alimony be provided for her and maintenance for her child, and that the man be refused the right to marry again.


Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: Although this bill is in my name, I am only sponsoring it for the solicitor in charge for the petitioner, but as the matter is entrusted to me I think it is only fair that something should be said on her behalf here. One has only to read the petition and, if one is so disposed, the evidence which has been sent to us from the senate, to see the nature of the offence and I feel justified in thinking that the senate committee has reported properly. The offence is a crime which, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, is punishable by life imprisonment, and accompanying that crime were other offences against the criminal code, also adultery practices.
This petition is offered on behalf of the wife, who desires to have the marriage bond dissolved because of those crimes and offences against the marital bond. The amendments, it seems to me, are intended to make the granting of that divorce conditional. We must not forget that the remedy here is asked for by the wife, the injured person, not by the one who committed the wrong. Whether parliament would be justified in carrying a penalty to the one who does the wrong is another matter, and it appears to me that the amendment is one that should be dealt with by parliament in a separate bill that might be made applicable to every divorce application which comes before parliament. All that the petitioner asks for is the dissolution of the marriage tie. The senate committee, I submit, found in favour of her application, and they recommend that the bill be passed. The evidence shows that the petitioner and her witnesses proved, not only the crimes alleged but also that the respondent had deprived her of moneys that she had of her own before marriage, and that she holds a judgment against her husband for the amount involved in that respect. The evidence further shows that she proceeded in the courts of Ontario and obtained a judgment for alimony, not of $500, as this amendment would say, but of $250 a month or $3,000 a year. Furthermore, the evidence also establishes that at the time
Procedure in Divorce Bills

that judgment was signed, in October last, she was entitled to SI ,500 by way of arrears of alimony, and that judgment has not been purged by payment. Further than that, I have before me a copy of an order made in the supreme court of Ontario on the 22nd of December last, by which she is awarded the custody of the child, which is under three years of age. I might say also that the husband bad converted some of his wife's goods and chattels, to the amount of some $7,000, and she has a judgment for that in the courts of Ontario. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but she has proceeded in the courts of Michigan and she has there obtained judgment for the value of the goods that he converted, and she also has proceeded to obtain a confirmation in the American courts of the judgment that she holds in Ontario for alimony, and also for the custody of the child.	_
I think it should be pointed out here, in view of what has been said by the hon. member, that the application did not go by default; the respondent appeared before the senate committee and gave sworn evidence, yet he did not in one word attempt to deny the bestiality of the crimes which she _ had testified to; all he did was oppose the petition on the ground that he was an American citizen, or that he was domiciled in the United States. It was also brought out that he has not become an American citizen but that he has filed papers looking to the acquirement of citizenship in the United States.
It may be noted that the first part of the amendment which was moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre has already been satisfied by the courts of Ontario and Michigan. That is, the petitioner has already got what this amendment would like to give her in that respect. As to the moneys due her from her husband, she has failed to realize on the judgment obtained; they are of no use, because the officers of the court have not been able to implement them. The fact that he has applied for citizenship in the United States indicates that he does not intend to make this country his domicile, and the last part of the amendment would apply only if he remained in Canada. Our law is not enforceable in the United States; it is enforceable only in Canada. If he married again he would be responsible, probably, to the extent of the penalty prescribed by the amendment, but it is quite evident that he intends to live in the United States, not in Canada. He is permanently employed in the country to the south, being in business in the city of Detroit. So that the adoption of this proposed amendment would really be an in-
effective measure; I do not think the bill dissolving the marriage should be burdened by this amendment, because of its ineffectiveness in Canada owing to his being in another country.
I feel very much the same as the member for Winnipeg North Centre, that these cases should be tried in the courts of Ontario, but that is a matter dealt with by another bill. If such a law were in force to-day I have no doubt that the courts of Ontario would give the wife in this case all the remedies that she desires. The courts of Ontario, as those of other provinces, have power to grant alimony and determine the, custody of the children, and that sort of thing. Why is it necessary for us to legislate further in that regard?
On the question of the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, I am not going to offer any extended remarks. The British North America Act says that the federal parliament can legislate with regard to marriage and divorce, and the provinces in respect to the solemnization of marriage. It might be argued that if this amendment passed we should be declaring that the respondent is ineligible for marriage, and as something which precedes another marriage it might be determined possibly under the question of solemnization. The Ontario law already provides for something of the same kind in the case of infants; it prescribes that infants may not marry without the consent of their parents, and so on. If the province has power to prescribe even to the extent of who shall marry, it could easily be argued that if we in our legislation prohibit this man from marrying again, we are attempting to do something that is within the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario.
I submit that the amendment should be voted down and that the bill should be allowed to pass as it stands. What is included in the amendment should be brought before the house in a separate bill so that it may be applicable to all divorces granted by parliament. It is for parliament to decide whether or not conditions of that character should be before the courts in determining the question of divorce, but in this case there is no reason at all for such an amendment. This woman is without doubt entitled to a divorce; the amendment only complicates the matter, and I doubt very much whether we have power to punish the man and whether, if we endeavoured to do so, such punishment would be effective.

Procedure in Divorce Bills


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: This subject has been brought before the house a number of times by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). As it has not been my privilege to be present at any time during the discussion, perhaps I might be permitted to say a word or two on the matter. The duty has been delegated to me of representing the private bills committee on the senate committee on divorce. It is not altogether a pleasant duty and I am not going to say that I have adequately discharged it, but on various occasions I have attended meetings of the senate committee and I have watched the proceedings. If I read Hansard aright, when this matter was under discussion before, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) referred to the way in which cases were submitted before that committee and I wish very heartily to endorse the testimony which they gave at that time. It is a great mistake that the opinion should be allowed to go out to the country that these matters are not considered seriously by parliament. The faot that these discussions have taken place in the house will tend to increase throughout Canada the opinion that we are dealing with these matters in a careless, haphazard fashion. That is not the case. As I have said, in the discharge of the duty imposed upon me by the private bills committee, I have on various occasions attended meetings of the senate committee. I have been greatly impressed by the care that has been exercised by the senators in coming to conclusions and regarding the character of the evidence which they are prepared to accept. As we know, there is only one ground on which divorce is granted by that committee and a petition is granted not simply because that offence is suspected but because it is proven by incontrovertible evidence. Therefore when these bills come before the house, supposing that they may go through in a somewhat formal manner, perhaps those not acquainted with the previous procedure may think proper consideration has not been given to them. That is not the case. Those cases are well considered; in the great majority of them no defence is offered and the respondent does not appear because the case is too conclusive against him and judgment, I find, is invariably rendered in accordance with the evidence. If we are to consider the bills in this house in the same manner and with the same degree of care that they are considered in the senate, it will be necessary for us to have all the evidence adduced before the private bills committee and again brought up in the house, and I ask hon. gentlemen: Is it desirable that that should be done? I say most emphatically that it is not desirable.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I remind the house that the senate is asking to be relieved of the duty and responsibility of passing upon these bills and, indeed, of handling the question of divorce at all?


John Livingstone Brown: I was not discussing that
question.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I further point
out that before the senate committee nothing is taken into consideration except the question whether or not a divorce shall be granted? There is on the order paper, under the heading of "Public Bills and Orders," Bill No. 27, which proposes to deal with the matter. On Tuesday last in discussing the situation I criticized the rules of the house as they stand to-day and I pointed out the difficulty that a private member has to contend with in order to get a decision of parliament on a bill which he introduces. The Prime Minister in reply to my remarks pointed out that when these rules were introduced they were accepted unanimously by the house and that by my passive acquiescence at least I had given my consent to the rules. Theoretically of course that is correct.


Mr. NEILL:: It is not correct that they
were accepted unanimously.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is what the Prime Minister said. I was just replying to his remarks. Theoretically when a member does not object to a particular measure it follows that he approves of it. In reality that is not so, because if we were each and everyone to state our objections to every measure before the house and to force a vote upon it-


John Frederick Johnston: I am afraid the hon.
gentleman's remarks are not relevant to the matter before the committee.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I point out that
on Tuesday last, the 23rd April, I was interrupted on a point of order by the hon. member for Meifort (Mr. McLean) when I was discussing this very point and the Speaker ruled that I was in order. Therefore I presume I may be allowed to finish my remarks. I will make them as brief as possible.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely my hon. friend
is not in order in discussing a subject which is on the order paper under another number?
Private Bills


Milton Neil Campbell: I was not discussing
that other bill at all. Perhaps I might read the Speaker's remarks.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: In referring to a previous debate on the same subject this session, the hon. gentleman is certainly not in order.


Milton Neil Campbell: This is not the same
question. I just wish to say that the difficulty that has arisen can be avoided by a simple amendment to the rules. The reason why I did not object to the rules when they were brought in last year was because I considered they were a compromise.
Amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



INTERPROVINCIAL AND JAMES BAT RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 69, respecting the Intenprovincial and James Bay Railway Company-Mr. Parent-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time for commencement and completion.
Mr. SPENCER:: I understand that this
railway goes into the Rouyn district, where there are already two railways. I would ask the Minister of Railways, if he is supporting this bill, to give us his reasons why a third railway should be allowed to go into that district and compete with the other two. Is there not going to be a duplication of railways in that district if this bill goes through?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a private bill. Before the railway committee, when this and one other railway bill were under consideration, I pointed out as nearly as I could the situation which would exist in the district in question. The representatives of the railway companies interested also addressed the committee, and all expressed themselves as quite satisfied with what was being done with respect to both of the charters under consideration. Apparently the committee was satisfied that there was plenty of room in that district for the railways in question, and they agreed to report the bill without amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot but think that we should be very careful about a matter of this kind. This is territory in which we are spending large sums of money. We own the terminals at Hudson bay, and we own at present the only line of railway that reaches the Hudson bay. The minister pointed out
[Mr. Lapointe.l
the other day, very properly, in connection with a railway in northern Alberta, if my memory serves me, that the territory was being invaded by a private line which, if successful, would be able to take away traffic from the government road. Should we not decline absolutely to grant charters to private enterprises where the effect will be in any way to lessen and impair the possibility of our own line earning money, and should we not rather extend branch lines into that territory for the purpose of preserving it for our own railway? In other words, if we must pay the deficits, and we must, let us be very astute to see that so far as possible every bit of territory that is contiguous to our line may be served by profitable branch lines for the protection of our own property.


Mr. EVANS:: If I remember rightly, it was pointed out in the committee that this line parallels the line under another charter which has already been granted, and the question was if they would not both be going through the same territory if both went round the one side of a certain lake. I think we should be careful in granting these charters, particularly to companies of this kind, which is not either of the two great national companies, the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific. It seems to me that we are fast creating another railway situation which in a few years is going to land us in a worse position than the one from which we have been trying to extricate ourselves in the last nine or ten years. We are paralleling lin-es all over this country, and here in this new district we are granting a charter to a new railway company altogether which is going to parallel the line and interfere with the earnings of the Canadian National Railway. We are doing this in many places throughout the Dominion to-day, and I think this parliament should be very careful to see that we do not create a situation which gives rise to a worse railway problem than the one we are now trying to find a solution for. This railway is certainly endeavouring to be first to get into this mining district. Whether it is for the purpose of developing a certain company's mine or not, I do not know, but this makes the third railway in that district, and I repeat, it is invading Canadian National territory and going to interfere with the earnings of our national railway.


Milton Neil Campbell: I heartily concur in
the remarks of the hon. member for Rose-town. It seems remarkable to me that we should permit another railway to build into what is distinctly Canadian National territory. I thought that the railway committee

Private Bills
had laid it down as a principle that none of these smaller railway companies would be allowed to build into territory which should be served by one of the two big companies, the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific. I realize that we can hardly lay down the principle that the two existing lines shall have a monopoly of railway business in this country, but-*


Charles Avery Dunning: May I interject that
this is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they have had a charter through there for many years. I think in fairness to them I should say that.


Milton Neil Campbell: I was just going to say that I think in most cases we should give the preference to one or other of the existing lines. When the Canadian Pacific railway builds a piece of line, we know it is not going to be left on our doorstep, but that may happen when a smaller company builds it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 46, respecting the Nipissing Central Railway Company-Mr. Lang-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time for completion.
Thomas Langton Church: I see no reason why parliament should give an extension every five years to this railway. They have already had five extensions from this parliament. Who are these people? The bill doesn't say who they are. This is a very important territory surrounding the towns of Latchford and New Liskeard, and the railway is to run through the townships of Coleman, Bucke, Dymond, Harris and Casey to a point on or near Blanche river, thence in a northerly direction to a point at or near Windigo lake, thence northeasterly to a point on the line of the National Transcontinental at or near the Matagami river. They received their charter in 1907, by chapter 112, and it was renewed in 1908 by chapter 135; they came back five years later, in 1913, for a further extension, by chapter 160; they were back again in another five years, in 1918, for a further extension, by chapter 56, and back again in 1923, for a further extension, by chapter 80, and now in 1928. another five years, they are
back again for another extension. Five years seems to be the psychological moment for them to come back and ask for an extension, with every new parliament. Where is all this going to end? Some of the most important mining districts in Canada to-day are in the territory which this railway is to run through, and I maintain that the territory, no matter who owns this railway, should be served by the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, which is not asking for any subsidy or extension from this legislature.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
permit me, the Nipissing Central railway is owned by the Ontario government, and it is the Ontario government which is asking for this extension of time.


Thomas Langton Church: Even if it is owned by the Ontario government they should set an example and carry out their contract and develop the district instead of asking for an extension of time every five years. As I have Said, the bill does not say who the owners are.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 71, to incorporate the St. Lawrence River Bridge Company-Mr. Smith (Stormont)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Thomas Langton Church: This bill should not be allowed to pass in its present form, Mr. Chairman, in view of the action taken by Governor Smith of the state of New York. He has laid down the principle that such international bridges should be built by the state or federal government or by the municipal authority. This parliament has jurisdiction over bridges that are international, interprovincial or that affect navigation.
What is the policy of the government of Canada in regard to this and the other bridge bills? We have three of these bridge bills, one at Sarnia, two or three at Niagara, and two on the St. Lawrence. We are told that the St. Lawrence river question cannot be discussed at the present time because it is on the way to the privy council, but navigation is also affected by this particular private bill. So the issues involved in the reference to the supreme court are relevant to this bill. The interests of navigation are paramount to
Private Bills

any private bill or interests. I protest against this policy. The preamble recites:
Whereas a petition has been presented praying that the persons hereinafter mentioned may be incorporated for the purpose of constructing and operating a bridge for railway and general traffic purposes across the St. Lawrence river from the town of Broekville in the province of Ontario, to a point at or near Morristown, in the state of New York-
Section 1 discloses the personnel of those who have been incorporated to build the proposed bridge. They are:
The Right Honourable George Perry Graham, senator, and James Gill Gardner, manufacturer, both of the town of Broekville, in the province of Ontario.
The latter gentleman is one of the directors of the national railways. In fact, several gentlemen connected with the national railways are behind these bridge bills. The other day an engineer of this railway was a promoter of the Sarnia bridge bill. I contend that if anybody should build bridges it is the Canadian National Railways, but the management say they have nothing to do with such projects. It is well known that a large part of the earnings of the road is being diverted by motor busses and motor trucks engaged in local business. This business should be developed near these bridges by the railway management as a feeder to the main line. Another of the incorporators is William Arthur McLean, of the city of Toronto, consulting engineer. For a number of years he was with the highways branch of the Public Works department of Ontario. We seem to be continually playing the game of bridge both inside and ouside of this building; everybody is playing bridge, it seems, this session. When we ask in the railway committee what is the policy of the government in regard to any private bill for a railway or a bridge, and the Minister of Railways is not present, we are told they have no particular policy. Wherever there is a potential gold mine in the way of traffic the national railways have no money to spend; but wherever there is going to be a deficit, such as the branch line business or a hotel venture in Halifax, or an hotel in Paris, they are ready to spend money like water. This bridge should be built by the people and for the people, or by the two governments or the municipal authority. In other words, the national railways should preserve the territory to be served by this bridge as a feeder for their main line. What did Hon. Alfred Smith, governor of New York, say as to his policy with resDe't to this bridge? I quote:
"Such bridges should be built by the state or states or by one or more governmental subdivisions or by a public municipal authority

similar to the port authority," the governor declared in his blanket veto of the three measures. "If such a bridge is to be built over international waters it should be constructed jointly by the United States in conjunction with the Canadian government or by the state of New York in conjunction with the Canadian province affected."
Such projects, the governor felt could be financed at lower cost by the state or federal governments, while, he added, "they are in their very nature public; to authorize privately-owned toll bridges is a step as backward as to authorize privately-owned highways, under the wording of these acts, the franchise is practically made perpetual."
"If it pays private corporations to erect these bridges," the governor's memorandum continued, "it will certainly pay the state to do it. If tolls are to be charged, the state should be the recipient of the tolls, and they should not be in excess of what is required to operate and maintain property, pay the interest on the bonds and make the necessary annual contributions to the sinking fund for their retirement."
These are Hon. Mr. Smith's views for the state of New York-public ownership for this bridge between the two countries.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nine o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: The hour for
private bills having been exhausted, the house will resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider government order No. 11.



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, to amend the Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinfret

Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Leon Johnson Ladner: When the committee rose
at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I had not finished my remarks, but the Secretary of State has a statement to make, and I will proceed after he has concluded.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not rise to discuss
at any length the remarks made by other hon. gentlemen. I stated the case rather fully last night on the second reading of the bill and many of the remarks that have since followed have answered one another. I believe that opportunity should be given every hon. member interested in the bill to present his views as best he sees fit. I do desire, however, to move an amendment to the section now under consideration and that is my purpose in rising at the moment.
Last night, on the second reading of the bill, I endeavoured to indicate the principle underlying the bill, which is to repeal those clauses whereby an applicant is required to go before the courts, and instead to give to

Naturalization Act
the Secretary of State full discretion to consider, either favourably or unfavourably, any application for naturalization. This, I pointed out, is the principle which obtains in Great Britain and in other British dominions as well. The discussion that has taken place since has not disproved that position, but it has been shown by other hon. gentlemen that there might be this difference between the bill as now proposed and the acts in the different dominions:	that whilst in this
country, if the bill remained in its present form, regulations would issue from the department, in other dominions some of the regulations are made statutory. I appreciate that difference and that is why I am now bringing in this amendment.
I had intended in committee explaining the procedure that would be followed by the department, should this bill be adopted^ The applicant would have to send his application to the Secretary of State on a prescribed form, as is done now; and that form is quite expansive, covering all the requirements of the act and also affording an opportunity for ample information on every point involved. The form is sworn by the applicant before a justice of the peace, a commissioner of the superior court, or other person competent for the purpose, and it is intended not only to retain that regulation but, if necessary, to add to the references that will be required to accompany it. It was also the intention of the department, through regulations, to have the fullest investigation conducted into all the facts of every individual case and to give, as is done in other dominions, some degree of publicity to the request for a certificate.
I intimated to the hon. member for Fort William that in the present bill it would be possible in certain cases for the Secretary of State to grant a certificate immediately, without any delay at all. I will say frankly that such was the intention, for this reason: In certain cases where the applicants were well known to the department, and when it was quite easy to verify their application, it would have been desirable that the certificate be granted at once. And I had in mind only exceptional cases of that character. But it was clearly my intention, through regulations, to institute the most severe investigation in every case. But it is impossible to conduct any such investigation except in a period of at least thirty or forty days. I will admit also that from the discussion which has taken place in the house, and from the view
generally expressed on all sides, the discretion of the Secretary of State, possibly, should not be made too wide. I have been convinced that it might be better to lose sight of these exceptional cases and to provide for a compulsory delay, and that is the object of the amendment which I now wish to propose. In this amendment it will be stipulated that the applicant shall apply to the Secretary of State on a prescribed form; that the application shall be posted in the post office nearest to the residence of the applicant: and that a compulsory delay of not less than sixty days shall take place before the certificate is granted. All these stipulations were contemplated in the regulations which the department, through myself, would have submitted in the committee stage. I am, however, quite willing to make them statutory, in my great desire if possible to bring about an understanding in regard to this bill. I believe that the amendment which I shall submit to the committee will be acceptable, and that the trend of opposition which has been advanced against the bill will in very large measure disappear. I therefore move:
That the following be inserted after the word '"repealed", and the following section be substituted therefor:
22. An alien desiring to be naturalized shall make application therefor in the prescribed form arid forward his application to the minister. The minister shall then send notice of such application to the postmaster at the post office nearest to the place of residence of the applicant, and 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 the certificate of naturalization.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What does the hon. gentleman expect to gain by this procedure?


Leon Johnson Ladner: The proposed amendment is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but it does not go very far; the minister ought to take a leap. He remarks that the trend of the opposition will likely disappear in view of this amendment. Well, in my judgment, after listening to the remarks that have been made, the minister has not touched the real point of objection on the part of a large number of those who oppose the bill. The real point of the objection-in fact, the essential feature of the entire bill-is the step now proposed of taking from the courts the decision as to the fitness and the qualifications of the applicant for citizenship and giving that authority exclusively to the Secretary of State-and I am not at all referring to the minister personally. That in my judgment
Naturalization Act

is the issue before parliament; that is the question which the government should properly review.
Before six o'clock I had summarized the minister's objections to the present law. I believe the objections which he raised were first the distance of the applicant from the court and the expense of attending court, then the fact that courts sometimes adjourn, requiring the applicant to return; the courts are said to sit too infrequently, and the attendance of the applicant is required at inopportune times such as harvesting and trapping. With these points I dealt in my remarks before six o'clock, but the minister stated another objection when he referred to the delay in dealing with the application, and also to the fact that sometimes the clerks of the courts, through their incompetency, receive applications which should not be received. and in that way applicants are sometimes brought to the court only to be sent back home after having gone to some expense. I submit that each of these objections is an exception to the general rule; they are not things which ordinarily happen. Thousands of applications are put through in this country and in 95 per cent or 98 per cent of the cases they go through in the ordinary -way with the facilities of the court conveniently at hand, and with a judgment by the court which is fair and reasonable.
I should like to direct the attention of the government to the increase of our population and its racial origin, because in framing laws of this kind I submit we must look to the future. In 1871 Canada had a population of about 3,485,000 people, while by 1921 that population had grown to about 8,788,000, and to-day it is in the neighbourhood of 9,500,000. In 1871 of our then population 60.5 per cent were British, and by 1921 that percentage had fallen to 55.3, the French portion of the population of Canada amounted to 31.2 per cent in 1871, and that figure was reduced by 1921 to 28 per cent. In 1871 the foreign portion of our population totalled 8.3 per cent, but by 1921 it had grown to 16.7 per cent; in other words, while the percentage of the population composed of the two great races decreased, the foreign population increased by more than 100 per cent. It may be argued that 16 per cent is not a large figure as compared with 28 per cent, and it is not my intention to speak of the foreign population with any disrespect. I quote these figures for the purpose of indicating to the government the need of carefully safeguarding the granting of citizenship to this ever-increasing number of foreigners who come from all parts of the globe. It is easy to conceive that within the next fifty

years the foreign population may constitute the majority of the people of Canada; we have only to look at the records of the United States following the civil war to see the tremendous immigration which took place into that country. Therefore I contend that in admitting people of foreign origin to citizenship we should surround that procedure with every safeguard.
What are the considerations which come to the minds of the people of Canada, and which should be submitted to the members of this house? We know that the character of the applicants and their loyalty to Canada are important matters, and in admitting foreigners to Canada citizenship we must have regard necessarily to those peculiar characteristics of the different races, which are liable to leave in their minds a feeling of loyalty to their own countries rather than to Canada. The minister now proposes to take away from the courts the duty of determining the fitness of applicants for citizenship, but during the past centuries we have developed through our courts that magnificent institution known as British jurisprudence and British ideals of justice. British justice, as we call it, is one of the great features of present-day civilization, and it has arisen very largely through the judgment and character of those who have occupied judicial positions. Now I put this to the government and to the members of this house:	If the members of our judiciary
have been able to build up such an institution, which has redounded to the advantage of the British people in such a way, surely they are capable of the very finest conception of citizenship.
The word "citizenship" involves a great man considerations which I will not go into now, but if the Secretary of State is to exercise the functions now discharged by the judiciary in determining the fitness of applicants for citizenship, how will he go about it? I ask hon. members to direct their minds to the regulations which the minister may have in mind; we have had some indication of the method by which he proposes to carry out this undertaking. He cannot examine all these applicants himself, but according to the proposed amendment he intends to have a long form filled out, which will be sent first to Ottawa and then to the postmaster nearest the residence of the applicant. As yet it has not been indicated to us that some responsible officer of the government or some member of the judiciary will look that applicant squarely in the eye and size him up as witnesses are sized up on the witness stand; it has not been

Naturalization Act
shown that he will be asked questions and examined in such a way as to get the benefit of a personal contact without which it is impossible really to judge the character of a man.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I suppose my hon. friend
realizes that what he now suggests is not done in any part of the British Empire except Canada?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am not discussing that;
perhaps we. have a system which is superior to that in use in other portions of the British Empire, and we have problems which are more difficult. I have seen Americans come before the courts in Vancouver; Canadian citizenship is highly cherished by them and is carefully safeguarded by the courts. The applicants appear before a judge, who asks a number of questions which help to indicate the character of the man, because we do not want crooks or bad characters in this country. The judges ask their questions in an endeavour to ascertain whether, in case of an emergency, the applicant would remain loyal to Canada rather than to the country of his origin, and in asking these questions the judge, with his trained mind, can determine accurately and clearly whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to become a Canadian citizen.
Now let us consider what the Secretary of State proposes. He must work through some agency, and he tells us that he proposes to hold a severe investigation into all the facts of the matter. By what process is that investigation to be carried out? The Secretary of State must rely upon some individual; he must send out a mounted policeman, a homestead inspector or perhaps some appointee of the department. Is there an hon. member of this house who null sav that any of those individuals has the competency, the judgment or the ability to determine upon the fitness of an applicant, as compared with a judge? I do not see how the government can justify their action in that respect. They are lowering the standard . of citizenship by creating inferior judges to determine the fitness of applicants for naturalization certificates.


George Washington McPhee: Is my hon. friend not
aware that under the act as it stands the investigations are being carried out b'y the mounted police?


Leon Johnson Ladner: That may be so, under
the direction of the court, but the act requires the applicant to appear before the court on three months' notice, and the great proportion of applicants do actually so appear.
I will not take up further time, Mr. Chairman, but in my judgment this proposal is one of the most far-reaching that we have had before parliament for some considerable time, and I repeat that neither the minister nor anybody on the government side has advanced a single sound argument against the present system. Every contention they make is based upon the exceptions which occur, such for example as the court adjourning from some uncertain reason, or the difficulty encountered in some remote section of the country where the court does not sit more than once or twice in a year. But the great majority of applicants are handled with despatch, and the court deals with them under a system which works smoothly and efficiently. The result is a standard of citizenship in this country which we cannot possibly have under the system now proposed by the government, namely, the sending out of agents on behalf of the government to go out and examine these people. I should like to ask the minister now whether he will deny this assertion, that the judiciary, the members of the court, are far better qualified, with their training, their experience, and their independent position, to judge of the fitness and quality of the applicants than any agents which he may send out, homestead agents or mounted police or other police officers.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Some of the judges have
said that they arc not. I cited yesterday one communication from the Hon. Chief Justice Meredith. It is a matter of policy and interpretation, and {here is nothing in the law or the act that can lead to the formation of a judgment on the cases which come before them.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I might say to the minister that the letter of the learned judge merely states in effect that the statute does not describe what constitutes fitness, that he must take the responsibility, and that in carrying out the law he would prefer that the statute indicate what fitness is. Now, when the minister repeals those sections and leaves the remainder of the act the way he does, the point is not covered at all; he merely transfers to some representative of his the responsibility of judging as to the fitness of the applicant.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The responsibility therefore is with the Secretary of State, and that is where it belongs, because it is a matter of policy and is for the government to determine. I have in my hand a letter from
Naturalization Act

another learned judge, and I will, if my hon. friend wishes it, place it on record. It is as follows:
Court of King's Bench, Winnipeg.
19th October, 1927.
The Honourable,
The Secretary of State,
Ottawa.
Re Naturalizations -
Sir:-
Sitting as a judge in open court this morning, two applications for naturalization came before me, one by a man named Hylko Sikorski, and the other from a man by the name of Frank Skibitzky. Sikorski has been in Manitoba since 1911 and can neither speak, write nor read English. He apparently has homesteaded land and is desirous of obtaining naturalization solely for the purpose of enabling him to secure bis patent. The same remarks hold good as to the other man, and I find attached to the application in the Skibitzky case a letter from the Under Secretary of State to the assistant clerk of the court of King's bench here, asking that the attention of the presiding judge should be called to the applicant's lack of qualification in the matter of speaking our language.
I would be glad to know for what reason these applications come before the judges of our court. It is a purely formal matter. We look at the man, ask him a few questions, but rely upon the written application, which, if it complies with the law, we have no course but to confirm, a proceeding which can be as well done by the clerk of the court who takes the applications as by a judge. I know of no reason which would justify a judge in refusing to confirm the application simply because the applicant was unable to read or write or speak the English language.
Please advise me if there are any grounds upon which a judge, under the act. may exercise a discretion in accepting or rejecting the applicants of this kind.
Yours very truly,
J. P. Curran, Judge K.B., Manitoba.


James Arthurs: Would the minister regard him as a proper man to be a judge in such a case, when he does not kn-ow that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The Conservative government appointed him.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The point I make is that in the opinion of the judge the appearance before him is a formal matter, and he appeals to the department to help him.


James Arthurs: He does not know his duty if he says that and the man can neither read nor write.


William Alves Boys: Does the minister agree with the contention of the judge there? Does he think the judge should hesitate for one second about granting citizenship to a man who cannot understand either the English or the French language?
[Mr. Rinfret.J


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Does my hon. friend believe that as Secretary of State I would not refuse a certificate under such circumstances? That is not the point at all. The point is to show that the reference to the courts is a mere formal matter and is of no use whatever, in the opinion of some judges.


James Arthurs: No, the minister is absolutely wrong. He is relying upon the opinion of a certain judge who does not know the law which he is trying to administer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I read yesterday the
opinion of a very learned judge. It is urged now that the letter of Mr. Justice Meredith does not mean what it says. I want to show from letters of other judges that that opinion is rather common among judges in this land. Here is a letter from Mr. Justice Galt, as follows:
Court of King's Bench, Winnipeg.
September 16, 1924. The Hon., the Minister of Justice,
Ottawa.
Re Naturalization Act
Sir: -
As the law now stands, all candidates for naturalization have to come before a judge of the King's Bench here; and our instructions from the department are, practically, to pass on the applications to the department for final decision.
We have little or no discretion, but just put a few formal questions, the answers to which we have no means of verifying. The work is purely ministerial, and could be performed just as well by the official who takes the original application. A lot of valuable time is thus wasted in court, and no object gained, except to comply with the act. Might I respectfully suggest an amendment of the law in this particular ?
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. C. Galt.
This is another example of a judge who admits that this procedure is altogether useless and leads nowhere. The purpose of the bill is to give to the Secretary of State under certain regulations, some of which I have now placed on the statute by an amendment, others that will be brought down by the department in the_ ordinary way, full discretion as it exists in every other British dominion and in Great Britain. This is the only country in which an applicant must first refer his case to the court and in which the discretion of the Secretary of State is limited to pronouncing on cases regarding which the court has reported favourably.

Naturalization Act
Mr. BOYS- As I understand the minister's suggestion from that quotation, one of the reasons for the changes is that the judges have not time to hear these cases. In the first place I should be surprised to learn that the judge must be a judge of the supreme court. I do not profess to have a technical knowledge of the act but so far as I know a county court judge may perform the service under the act. Therefore I do not see why it is suggested that the case must come before a judge of the king's bench. If it is to be argued before the committee that the judges of the courts of Canada have not time to do this work when there are at least five hundred courts in the Dominion, how in the name of goodness is one man, the minister, to have time to do it?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have explained and I will explain again that all the applications come to the department in any case and in these very letters it is stated that the judges come to us for information. We have a whole organization to look into such cases.


William Alves Boys: In the one case the minister assumes responsibility after a certificate by a competent authority and after a thorough investigation. In the other he assumes the whole responsibility. In the one case one man is doing the work for the whole of Canada, and what is the position in the other? While I am guessing at the number, there are certainly more than seventy-five and there may be a hundred courts in Ontario alone, and I think I am within the mark when I say that there are from four to five hundred in Canada. If the judges have not time to do the work, how can the minister do it and do it thoroughly?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The comment regarding
the time feature is only one of the comments made by the judges. The main point in all these letters is that there is in the act nothing to enable the judges to interpret the requirements as stipulated in the act. This is not a matter of law in their mind. This is a matter of policy for the government to determine, very much so as in regard to the qualifications required from immigrants before they enter the country. The main point is that the government of Canada with a uniform system, and not the judges according to their own feelings, are to determine Whether or not a person is fit to be granted naturalization.


James Arthurs: I do not think the minister hias informed the committee as to who has asked for this legislation. Are the judges responsible for it?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think I have said that also. Complaints have been received from
remote parts of the country where applicants find it so hard to go before the courts that in most cases they are discouraged from doing so. It has been argued this afternoon that naturalization is a precious gift and that we should be very careful in granting it. I do not dissociate myself altogether from that point of view, but I wish to argue also that not only is it desirable but it is the duty of the government when persons have entered the country according to the immigration laws, have resided here the required time, and are qualified for naturalization, that we should make it as easy as we can for them to establish the requirement and to become Canadian citizens.


William Alves Boys: Does the minister think that if they cannot speak English or French they should be naturalized?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: After this act has been passed no applicant will be naturalized unless it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he can speak either French or English. I will add this, that there are many judges sitting in our courts who are not competent to decide whether an applicant speaks French or not, because they do not speak it themselves.


James Arthurs: That is an easy remark to make, and it may be true; but at the same time the minister is basing his whole argument on the opinion of one judge who wants to be relieved of a couple of cases where according to the minister's own statement they cannot speak either French or English. I do not see any demand for this legislation. There is certainly none in the province I represent and I do not think there is any from any right-minded citizen in Canada. Let me read the legislation that is proposed to be repealed. The first section simply defines clerks of the courts; it is immaterial. Let us take sections 22 to 27 inclusive, which are to be repealed by this legislation:	Section 22
reads:
An alien desiring to be naturalized shall apply for a decision establishing that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this act to any judge of any superior court or to any judge of any circuit, district or county court, and in the province of Ontario the court of general sessions of the peace and in the Northwest territories to such authorities or persons as the governor in council may prescribe.
Is there any objection to that? That is being repealed. Section 23 reads:
The application shall be delivered at the office of the clerk or other proper office of the
Naturalization Act

court during office hours, and such application shall be posted by such clerk or other proper officer in a conspicuous place in his office, continuously for a period of at least three months before the application is heard by the court.
The minister has not yet said what he proposes to substitute for that. He says that proper notice will be given, but he does not give any decision as to how that notice shall be given. Section 23 applies only to the notice which shall 'be given to the public as to the application of any alien for naturalization. Section 24 refers to opposition to an application, and I understand from the remarks of the minister that so far no provision has been made for this under the legislation as proposed by him, so that under the bill before us there is no opportunity for anybody to oppose an application for naturalization.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There is nothing to prevent anyone from opposing it. The notice is posted in the post office for months.


James Arthurs: Under section 24 there is a direct invitation by law regarding opposition to the naturalization of any alien, and the minister is repealing that invitation. In regard to the proof of qualification the evidence is brought in the first place before the court, and the man must appear personally in court. After that, under the present act, the minister has an oportunity to investigate the case; and I can say this much for the minister and for the administration, that I believe they have pursued the right course, namely, that regardless of whether the judge has passed upon an application or not, they have in the majority of cases sent the mounted police to investigate the circumstances. That is all they propose to do in the future, and that is what they are doing now under the present act. The minister will confirm what I say. He cannot deny it. He knows that every application is followed up by the mounted police and is confirmed before he grants a certificate. Is that not the case?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I more than know it; I have stated it many times.


James Arthurs: I know the minister said that it would occur under the amending bill if passed, but it is done at present, so he is adding nothing to the law as it exists.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We do not desire to add anything.
Mr. ARTHURS': No, but the minister is taking away a great many precautions.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Not precautions, but certain matters of procedure which do not prevail anywhere except in Canada.


James Arthurs: They prevail in Canada and we want them to continue to prevail, because they are proper safeguards. I do not think the minister should ask for any more discretion than is given him in section 27 of the present act, which reads, in part, "the minister may thereupon in his absolute discretion" decide whether this man shall or shall not be granted a certificate of naturalization. What more can the minister ask for? I grant you that the minister has covered himself with all sorts of virtues. He sends out the mounted police and has investigations made, and he promises this house that he will do the same thing in the future, except that there will not be the safeguards that are contained in this act.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend unduly, but he has been putting questions to me, and that is my reason for rising. The word "thereupon" is essential in the clause from which my hon. friend has just quoted. It means that the minister has absolute discretion only after the cases have been reported on favourably by the court, They are reported on favourably or not reported at all, so the minister has discretion only after a favourable decision of the court.


James Arthurs: Does the minister want
to grant naturalization to somebody of whom the courts do not approve?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No, but I want to do
away with the reference to the courts.


James Arthurs: The only case the minister can decide is one that has been reported on favourably by the court.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is what we want
to change.


John Wesley Edwards: It seems to me that the proposed change in the legislation boils itself down to this, that certain persons named by the minister are to be substituted to do what is now being done by the judges. I believe that is a retrogade step, a step in the wrong direction, and I desire to place myself on record against it. The getting of immigrants into this country is more than a question of numbers. It is a question as well of the advisability and the possibility of mixing old world and new world cultural characteristics. That should be safeguarded to the fullest possible extent. Our situation in Canada is not the same, for instance, as that of Australia or New Zealand, where the population is nearly all of one race and of one tongue. We have two dominating and principal races in this country

Naturalization Act
and surely the idea that was in the minds of those who first framed this Naturalization Act, in requiring that the immigrant be conversant with either the French or the English language, was a wise one; surely it was a proper move, and one that was intended to back up and support the two principal races in this country on whose shoulders rests, and must rest, the responsibility for the future progress and development of the Dominion of Canada.
It would be unreasonable for us as native-born Canadians to expect from the stranger within our gates, the foreign immigrant, the same regard for British institutions and for the soil of Canada as we have who were born and raised in this country. But if we are to do our duty to our country we must, it seems to me, impress upon the stranger within our gates the advisability of perpetuating British ideals and British institutions, and when a man is seeking his certificate of naturalization, which is a very serious and important matter, it seems to me that to send him before a judge for whom he has respect is to place his Canadian citizenship in a dignified position. Surely no person can contend that it would be better to delegate the powers now exercised by the courts to a policeman or to some agent of the government, no matter who he might be. It may be true, as the minister has said, that certain judges have objected along certain lines, birt the regulations which will be provided for the guidance of those who are to enforce this act will be no more specific to those who have not had the advantage of a legal training than they are at the present time for the judges of the land. A policeman or an agent appointed by the government will certainly be no better qualified to form an opinion as to the desirablity of granting a certificate of naturalization than one of the judges of our courts. I regard this proposal as a step absolutely in the wrong direction. All over this country we feel that the judges are men who through their training as well as their position are the most competent to take upon themselves this responsibility, and whether correctly or not, and I am disposed to say correctly, we regard our judges as outside of politics. No matter how many political strings they may have pulled to get a judgeship, once they are appointed to the bench we regard them as having no partisan bias, and that I believe is generally true.
I am not interested at all in the argument which has been advanced by the minister, and quite sincerely I believe, with regard to
the unnecessary expense and inconvenience to which certain foreigners are put in order to obtain their naturalization certificate. I believe that the strangers within our gates, immigrants from foreign lands, who have lived in the west or in any other part of Canada for the number of years required under the statute before they can obtain their certificate, have been here long enough to be impressed with the fact, or at all events we. should have impressed upon them the fact, that this is their country, and I believe that in the vast majority of cases, yes, I will say in almost ninety per cent of the cases, they want to get their citizenship papers. In the great majority of cases the foreigner who has lived in this country for a number of years, and who has succeeded far better in this country than he ever did in the country of his origin, is very proud to regard this as his land, and he will not be stopped from obtaining his certificate by the matter of a few dollars or a little temporary inconvenience to which he is put in obtaining a citienship which he values, and has the right to value, very highly. We have in this country, and are bound to have for many years to come, people from all parts of the world, and especially since the war, who have been trying to get away from those war-torn countries of Europe and the conditions under which they lived there, conditions in some cases little better than slavery. In the main, I think, these immigrants are endeavouring to make good in this country, and I believe the majority of them are coming to regard Canada as their country. They will not be retarded, therefore, or discouraged from obtaining the rank and dignity of citizenship by the little inconvenience of travelling a few miles or spending a few dollars in order to appear before one of the judges of our land in order that their papers of citizenship may be made out.
What better off are they if they have to depend upon the judgment of one man, we will say? It is utterly impossible, and I know this is as obvious to the minister as it is to every other member of the house, for the minister or any one person occupying the position of Secretary of State to pass personally upon all these cases. In the last analysis he must delegate his authority to agents, who, acting for him and on his behalf, must inspect and question applicants for naturalization as the judges do now. I do not think anyone will attempt to argue that any persons to be named as such agents, mounted police, homestead inspectors or others, could perform the functions now discharged by our judges
25S6
Naturalization Act

any better or with greater dignity and impressiveness, so far as the immigrant is concerned.
I see in this proposal a very clear indication of a coming election. Already we have a small army of government officials watching every hen that lays an egg and marking it as first, second, or third grade; we have another small army of officials with regard to vegetables, another with regard to roots, and another with regard to hay and straw; and now, if this bill passes, we are to have still another army of government agents. Before the next election they will go out and impress upon the foreigner who is seeking naturalization the advisability in his own interests of supporting the government of the day, in return for which he will be given his naturalization papers-perhaps without any cost to himself. I see no justification whatever for the proposed change, and I can only conclude that back of it is the desire to give the minister authority to appoint another army of agents to do what is now being done so satisfactorily by the judges, who are nonpartisan. The minister himself cannot possibly exercise this power in person, and he cannot assure us that those to whom he proposes to delegate it will exercise it without partisanship.
But I can readily understand why the government is seeking in this way to bolster up its waning fortunes. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has the doubtful' distinction of being the only prime minister since confederation who has attained office without a majority of the votes of the people. He has fought three elections, and in none has his government ever had the support of a majority of the electorate. That, of course, must be ever-present in the minds of himself and his supporters. Hence the desire to reinforce themselves in the next general election by passing legislation from time to time for the appointment of an army of agents in the persons of egg, vegetable, root, hay and straw inspectors, and now an army of naturalization agents.	[DOT]
The principle of this bill is wrong. It is a retrograde step. There has been no demand from the press, from the judiciary or from the public, except in one or two isolated cases where an immigrant who wanted to secure citizenship papers has got someone to tell the government that an agent should be appointed to go to his home and relieve him of all worry and responsibility in obtaining naturalization. In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, if the Dominion has the advantages which we claim for it it should not be necessary for us to spend tens of millions of dollars on immigration. But we have gone out into

the highways and byways and fairly dragged in immigrants, and afterwards we have had almost to put shackles on them to keep them *here. We are cheapening this country by our over-anxiety with respect to immigration, and I think we are cheapening it still further when we give the foreigner who has come here the impression that naturalization is something of very little account after all, and that he can go before any Tom, Dick or Harry and at no personal trouble or expense become a citizen of this great Dominion. [DOT]


John Evans: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the discussion, but I have not yet had an answer from the Secretary of State to the question as to who will conduct the investigation at his instance after the application for naturalization has been received. The member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) states that the mounted police will do this, but I should like to get the information straight from the Secretary of State himself.


George Washington McPhee: I said at the present time the investigations are being made by the mounted police.


John Evans: Let the minister answer,
please.


George Washington McPhee: The hon. member for Rose-town (Mr. Evans) referred to the statement made by me.


Mr. STEVENS:: He said be wanted to
hear from the Secretary of State. *


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have already stated
several times that every means of inquiry that is now in use is at the command of the department of the Secretary of State. Only a few minutes ago when moving my amendment I indicated what would be the procedure if this bill goes through. An applicant for naturalization will have to file with the Secretary of State a form, filled out by him under oath, giving all particulars in accordance with the requirements of the law. Those particulars will then be investigated by the Secretary of State.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: By whom?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Through an officer of the mounted police or an inspector of homesteads or any other officer at the command of the department. The application will also be posted in the nearby post office, where it can be seen by everyone knowing the applicant, and it will be possible for any such person having any objection to the application being granted to make representations to the department. After sixty days the Secretary of State will be in a position to

Naturalization Act
pronounce on the application; or he may require further information until to his satisfaction the applicant has complied with all the necessary requirements. And once more I repeat that, although this may seem most extraordinary to my hon. friends opposite, it is the procedure and the principle applied not only in Great Britain, but in every other dominion of the empire.


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister propose to have someone see the applicants personally?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: These applicants will be seen either by an officer of the mounted police, or by an inspector, or by someone else.


James Arthurs: Are they not seen in that way now?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In some cases.


James Arthurs: In all cases; and then they appear before a judge.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have tried to make it clear that the judges themselves admit that such appearance is a useless formality.


Peter McGibbon: What judges have said so?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have given the names of two.


John Evans: I must say that the amendment which the minister moved a little while ago gets rid of a good deal of my objection to the bill. But surely he must have thought out some mode of procedure as to who will conduct the investigation, and he should give it straight to the committee. As the bill stands this is left wide open-just as a system of patronage would be in the appointment of postmasters or any other officials

to whoever has the gift of patronage in the riding. That is what it looks like to me, and I cannot understand the reticence of the Secretary of State on this point. I want it cleared up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As my hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) observed this afternoon, this is perhaps the most important piece of legislation that has come before this house during the present session. I had intended discussing the question on the second reading of the bill when, through an oversight, it was referred to the committee. I will therefore take this opportunity of making such observations as I have to offer. I may as well come directly to the point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown and which has already been discussed in some measure. It is this: that by 56103-164
this legislation we are taking the question of naturalization out of the hands of the court and placing it exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of State. The question is propounded: What means does the Secretary of State propose to take to ascertain how these 16,917 applicants in one year may be properly examined so that he may give a fair decision in regard to their fitness for naturalization? That i3 the question. Hon. members may as well get clearly in their minds the fact that last year there were 16,917 applicants, practically 17,000. If we have got some idea of the magnitude of that task, which I think is readily appreciated, then we must realize that it is impossible for the Secretary of State and even for a substantial corps of officers in Ottawa to scrutinize this number of applications. The Secretary of State will not do it; he knows he will not do it. The Secretary of State cannot do it; physically or mentally it is impossible. Let us therefore at once dismiss it from our minds as an impossibility. Who then will do the work? Who are the people that will do it? At the present time it is done by one or other of some three or four hundred judges in Canada.
When this matter was brought up a few years ago, and it was proposed to give to the courts the authority to decide the question, I remember it was the particular appeal to this house of gentlemen in the party now represented by the Progressive group, and by others as well, that we should place it under the jurisdiction of the judges of Canada. It was pointed out that the two old parties, by habit and custom, had the inclination to inject politics into matters of this kind. That was the argument that was advanced, and as a matter of fact we agreed with it. This act was then brought into force.
Now what is the position taken by the minister? He has read three letters from judges indicating certain defects in or impediments to the present method. In the first place let me say this to the minister-and I say it without any desire to reflect upon the courts, because I am one who at all times, in the house and out of it, has stood for the preservation of the dignity and the integrity of the courts of this country. I will take second place to no one in that regard. But I believe there is a tendency on the part of some judges to look upon this phase of their work as incidental and not primary. Let me analyse briefly Chief Justice Meredith's letter or document which was placed on Hansard yesterday. I shall do so briefly, but I think it will lend a different complexion to the argument that judges are opposed to the

Naturalization Act

present method. And I invite the Secretary of State to interrupt me if I put a wrong construction on any of these quotations. Certainly I have no desire to do so. In the first place, Chief Justice Meredith points out that the power is in the hands of the Secretary of State to grant or to refuse a certificate. He lays that down as the premises or basis of his discussion. He goes further: he says that the judges have now no power to grant naturalization. In other words, he indicates that the judge's power is limited to merely examining and reporting and not to granting. Then he points out that there rests in the Secretary of State the absolute discretion regarding the refusal to issue a naturalization certificate; and he proceeds:
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-
To secure a certificate by any other means. The Secretary of State properly pointed out a moment ago that his discretion was limited to refusing applications that were passed on to him, but that he had no discretion to grant an application that had been refused by the court. That, he suggests, is one of the disabilities under the act. Let us examine that point briefly to see what force there is in the argument. Let us grant for the sake of argument that, perchance, some individuals worthy of naturalization are refused by a judge. Let us grant that for the sake of argument. We are sorry for such a person as an individual, if the case comes to our notice; anyone would be. But we are dealing with 17,000 cases; let us not forget that. Now is it a mater of prime concern that there may be some error or some alleged wrong in a few cases, or is it more important that we as a parliament should consider the safeguarding of 17,000 cases? That is the point which we must consider. I admit that whether it be on a question of naturalization or in matters of procedure from day to day, in the adjudication of cases in the courts, there are undoubtedly some instances in which full and complete justice is not done. But we do know from experience that, in the main, the judges of this country give fair decisions on matters that come before them. There is a point which possibly we might consider in this regard-I am not advancing this as desirable, but I say that it is open to consideration-namely, whether or not an individual who has been refused approval of his application by the judge should have some recourse. I am not saying that it is
I" Mr. Stevens. 1
not desirable; it is worthy of examination. Now, Chief Justice Meredith asks the question:
Who is a fit and proper person to be naturalized? It is really a question of policy.
The minister paused there when quoting from Chief Justice Meredith, indicating that it is a question of policy that may be determined by any judge. But Chief Justice Meredith does not say that. He says:
It is really a question of policy of the country.
Then he observes to the Secretary of State, addressing him with all respect: "You have not given to us"-the judges-"any lead as to what the policy of the country is."
Reading this report of Chief Justice Meredith's, I gather that he does not refer to the policy of the government but to the policy of parliament, as representing the whole Dominion of Canada, suggesting that it is the duty of parliament to come to some decision regarding the general policy to be applied to the granting of naturalization in Canada. I pause to examine that suggestion, which I think is a good one. I take the stand, first, that we have a dual duty to immigrants coming to Canada. Our first duty when an immigrant lands in the country is to see that he has a square deal, has the protection of the laws of the country, of which he is ignorant, and is given an opportunity to establish himself. That is our first duty. Our second duty to the immigrant is, in my estimation, to see that he is offered a reasonable opportunity to be informed in his civic duties in a strange land. Then I say we owe a duty to ourselves to see that no one receives a naturalization certificate who does not demonstrate that he is gratified to receive it. Now I cite the letter which my hon. friend mentioned a moment ago from a judge in Winnipeg. He complained about these two individuals, but I see no reason for his complaint; the statute is clear and he should not need to look for guidance other than that which he could find in subsection (b) of section 4 of part II of this act, which states:
.... that he is of good character and has an adequate knowledge of either the English or French languages. . . .
That is statutory; it is not optional with the judge and it does not matter what his opinion of those individuals might be. The statute says that an applicant must have a knowledge of either the French or the English language. Some hon. gentleman might say "But these two men were farmers who had homesteaded and who had been in this country

Naturalization Act
since 1911." Let us examine that for a moment:	Here were two men who had been
in this country since 1911; they had completed their homestead obligations and yet, after sixteen years, they had not acquired a knowledge of either the English or the French language; in this case I presume it would be the English language. I submit that if these two men, or men like them, did not take sufficient interest in the affairs of Canada and in the privileges of citizenship to acquire even an elementary knowledge of the English or the French language, they are not entitled to citizenship, and the judge had no occasion to be mystified or puzzled in that regard.
Then Chief Justice Meredith of Ontario, referring to the privileges of citizenship, said:
Besides making, as far as this Dominion can, the alien a British subject with all that that means, these things may be mentioned, not all but some of the more important: it gives to the person one of the qualifications to become law-makers in this Dominion, in the senate, the House of Commons, the provincial legislatures, and the lesser law-making councils; a right to vote; a qualification as juror, so that the man may adjudge among his fellow men even in questions of life or death; and a right to fill some public offices; and it prevents expulsion from Canada-deportation, as it is called.
The learned judge says these are some of the privileges enjoyed by a naturalized citizen, and the whole gravamen of the argument of Mr. Justice Meredith was mildly to chide the minister, not personally but as the present occupant of the position, for not, giving a sufficient lead to the judiciary of Canada in order that there might be a fairly uniform estimate of what constitutes a sufficiently good character to qualify for naturalization. That sums up the case presented by the judges, and I would like to summarize that feature of it. First, it shows an inclination not to do this work because it is of a secondary character, and secondly it shows the lack of a lead from headquarters regarding a uniform classification of the qualifications necessary.
What does the minister propose? He suggests that we repeal these sections, that we take this power entirely away from the courts and place it under his own absolute control. I should like to make a few arguments or suggestions to the minister now. Already the question has been asked as to how the minister will satisfy himself; I have intimated that it will be impossible for him to do so personally, so we will let that point go. Now I ask him if he will accept recommendations from let us say the mayor of a town, the reeve of a district, or the postmaster of the vicinity? Will he accept 56103-1641
recommendations from political friends? ] do not say that offensively, because I apply exactly the same argument to whoever may be in office. Will the minister who occupies for the time being the position of Secretary of State accept recommendations from his political friends? I think the answer must be in the affirmative, whatever party is in power. I think we all understand human nature well enough to know that if from any one of the 245 ridings of Canada there is presented to the minister a list of applications for naturalization supported by gentlemen who are known to the minister, he might very well say. "Why should we not accept these applications? We know the men who are recommending them and we have confidence in them." That is the natural answer. But let us carry it one step further. Let us eliminate for the moment any member of this house, or any lady or gentleman who has been a candidate for office; let us say those persons will offer sound advice. Are they the persons who will necessarily support these applications? They are not; it goes down the line to the ordinary party worker of whatever party it may be, and this applies to my friends of the Progressive group just as it applies to the old historic parties. They will not deny this; if they happened to be in office and the party organizers or workers came forward with recommendations for naturalization, I submit that the minister would find it very difficult to refuse them, and that would apply to all parties. The minister says he has a method by which he can control this matter, but we should like to hear that definitely described in order that we may satisfy ourselves that it is surrounded by safeguards which cannot be broken through. I submit to the minister, as one having had a good deal of experience in political matters, that it cannot be done, and I say that in all earnestness. I recall a time before this act was passed, in 1910 or 1911, when one group of 120 Italians were naturalized simply by an individual getting their applications. I do not say that simply because it wras done by my opponents, but they were all naturalized en bloc. That is not right.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Their applications were
passed upon by the court, if I am not mistaken.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They never appeared
before the court; under the old act they could become naturalized in that way, and I want to point out to the minister that that sort of thing is not right no matter by whom
Naturalization Act

it is practised. That is the reason why some of us at least are exceedingly anxious that the courts shall be the medium through which this work shall be carried out.
Now I wish very briefly to analyze the amendment of the minister, because he advances it as a solution of the very problem which I am now discussing. Before doing so, however, just as an aside I should like to draw the attention of the chairman to the fact that this bill should be reprinted with this new provision, in order that we may get the full effect of it. Now let us examine this amendment, which simply says that when the applications are received by the minister they shall be sent to the postmaster of the district in which the applicant lives. I happen to have in my hand the Postmaster General's report. There are 12,440 post offices and postmasters in Canada. I have not had time to count them, but of that number nearly one half are what they call non-accounting post offices, that is minor post offices. I venture the assertion that 25 per cent of these will be found either in private homes or in little stores in outlying places where the postmaster has a revenue of a few dollars a year, and where the post office is maintained merely for the convenience of our frontier, isolated districts. Just here I wish to pay this tribute to these postmasters: woefully underpaid as we know them to be, they are rendering to the country a very excellent service; there is no question of that. But is it reasonable to expect that a postmaster getting a small revenue, as I know some of them do-many of them get but $14, $22, $36, $41, $61 a year, and so on, a mere bagatelle; they are not keeping the post office for the money there is in it, because the revenue they get does not pay them for the rent of the place-I ask you, in those hundreds of cases is it reasonable to expect that the postmaster is going to attend earnestly and intelligently to the enforcement of this act? The minister proposes that when he receives an application he will send it back to the post office nearest the district where the applicant lives. I submit that the great proportion of the naturalization applications will come from the western section of Canada, and the newer districts of the western section, where the post offices are of the lesser type to which I have referred; and so the minister is going to send the application back to the postmaster of that district. At once I submit that it is unreasonable to expect that that postmaster will render a reasonable service; it will not be done, and it is not reasonable that we should ask it to be done. That is my first point. Then my second point is this-
TMr. Stevens.]


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Does the hon.
member suggest that to post a notice is a hardship on any of these men who give such excellent service at such a low price?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member for
Saskatoon is speaking ironically, but I am quite sincere in this. I submit that it is not reasonable to expect that the postmaster with a post office in his home in a remote district -and there are hundreds of them-is going to render the service required of him in respect to this Act.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend will
realize that the smaller the post office the less the population around it, and the fewer the applications which will come from that part of the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not follow. I have already indicated that it is from the districts with the smaller population that the larger number of applications will come. It is to the newer districts, where they can get cheap land, that the immigrants are going. The postmaster is to ipost this notice in a prominent place. I ask again, who is going to check up to see whether the posting is done, and say whether for sixty days the application has been so posted? And now I point out another difficulty. Here is a district in western Canada-or in old Ontario, if you like, I do not care where you take it; a county town in Ontario, a railway or elevator town on the prairies-where there are a store, an elevator and a hotel, and that is where the county court judge will come from time to time and hold his sittings. That is the place to which the people from the outlying districts come every week or two to buy their groceries and whatever other goods or commodities they may desire, and that is the best place to post the notice-where citizens who know the district and have a fair opportunity to judge may see the posting. But the minister wants to have the posting done at isolated post offices, where very few will see it, there is the least likelihood of its coming to the notice of anyone fitted to judge. On the other hand, if it were to go to the county town, to the municipal or township centre, to the post office or judge's court there, then there would be reasonable opportunity of its being seen. All that, however, is wiped out, and the minister substitutes for it this proposal.
I come to another point. I do not wish to be offensive, but I am going to state it to my hon. friend the Postmaster General. During the past few years the Postmaster General has discharged 400 postmasters throughout Canada-

Naturalization Act


Mr. VENIOT:: You are making a mistake, sir-421.
Mr. STEVEN'S:	I am not for a moment
bringing into question his reasons, or the fact that these postmasters were dismissed; the point is that they were relieved of their positions. Is it not again a reasonable deduction that if the practice of discharging a postmaster for political offences is to be followed and recognized in this country, to place the administration of the Naturalization Act under the postmasters in outlying districts will open the way for the exercise of undue influence, to put it mildly?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


An hon. MEMBER:: Everybody is not dishonest.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman made the statement that 400 postmasters were dismissed, and I stated that the number was 421, to make it correct. The hon. gentleman draws the inference that the 421 were dismissed for political reasons. Some of them were, certainly, but not ah the 421. I do not want that to be misunderstood.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly not; I am quite
willing to take the minister's word. I am going to state the fact to the 'house, and the members can judge for themselves. I am not going to press it, but the point I desire to make is that to place this very important duty in the hands of postmasters, the great majority of whom in the rural and outlying districts are men, and very often women, who receive a mere pittance and give only a very small portion of their time to the work, is not to have the investigation with respect to naturalization carried out as it should be.
Under section 24, which the minister proposes to repeal, anyone desiring to make or offer opposition to an application must appear before the judge and file or make his opposition there. Now that is a fair and reasonable safeguard to the applicant. Let me put it a little differently. An applicant comes before a judge of the county court. He claims a right to naturalization, and he proves his case. The notice is posted for three months, and then if someone in the neighbourhood says:	I object to this man being given
a certificate of naturalization, he must appear before the local judge and file or make his opposition there. That safeguard to the applicant the minister does away with, and what does he substitute for it? The application is made to the minister, it is sent to a remote post office or to some post office, and there it is posted. I may write to the minister, or
[Mr. Stevens.}
anybody may write to the minister, a friend may write him and secretly, without going
before any public tribunal at all, object to the applicant being given naturalization One might object to a whole batch of applications. What safeguard is there for the applicant? None whatever except the personal good faith of the minister. I have already pointed out that the personal good faith of the minister is impossible, because last year 17,000 applications were filed. The system proposed by the minister is not comparable in thoroughness or in the elements of justice with the system that he proposes to repeal. The minister intimates that in repealing the three months' notice he is going to substitute for it a sixty days' notice posting in the post office. 1 have already sufficiently analysed that to show that the latter is not comparable with the former. In the first instance the application is posted up by the clerk of the court. In the latter it is posted up in a post office in a more or less remote district. Under the present law the clerk of the court exercises a very large measure of jurisdiction, shall I say, over the technique of the application. The judge does not attend to the posting; the clerk of the court attends to that. A man comes in, fills in his application before the clerk of the court and it is pinned on to the board where notices of that character are exposed to public view. But under the proposed law there is no officer to fill out the application. The application will be filled out by whom? Nobody knows. By the mounted police? It is not likely that we are going to have a whole corps of mounted police throughout this country going around soliciting people to become naturalized. By homestead inspectors? Surely they have jobs to keep them busy. Are the postmasters going to do this? Certainly not. There is no one cited in the new system who will do it. The minister might say; Well, under section 28 I am going to exercise the power to make regulations. This matter is so serious and important that the committee has a right to know every detail of the proposed modus operandi. No more precious gift can this country bestow upon a newcomer than that of citizenship; and furthermore, as my leader pointed out very clearly this afternoon, we are conferring not only Canadian citizenship, which is a matter entirely within our own jurisdiction, but, under a joint agreement with the other sections of the empire, imperial citizenship as well.
I do not intend to proceed further with the argument.	I have presented these views
largely because I have for many years been
Naturalization Act

deeply impressed with the necessity in Canada of so framing our regulations and laws in connection with naturalization that when those who are naturalized receive the rights of citizenship they will appreciate the fact that they are becoming citizens of one of the greatest countries in the world, a country in which citizenship should be most highly prized.


Peter John Veniot: I did not intend to speak on this bill in committee, but some statements made by the hon, member for Vancouver Centre lead me to ask a question or two in, order that I may see whether or not I understood him aright. In connection with the pittance received by postmasters, referring to the list he held in his hand he mentioned $15, $21, $40, and so on, as the revenue the postmaster gets. That is not the pay the postmaster receives; that is the revenue of the office. If the revenue is only $10, the postmaster gets his minimum just the same, which would be $60-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Sixty dollars a year?
Mr. VENIOl : Yes, but the hon. member left the impression that in one case he got $15, in another $21, and in another $40. The minimum is $60 up to a revenue of $120, and for any revenue from $120 up to a certain other figure, $500 or $600, fifty per cent is added to the minimum.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How long has the
minimum been $60? It used to be a good deal less than that.


Peter John Veniot: It has been $60 for years.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In the early days the minimum was $30.


Peter John Veniot: That makes no difference. It is $60 now and it has been for at least the last ten or fifteen years. So that the postmaster is getting a little more than my hon. friend would have the committee believe.
While I am on my feet, let me point out that under the present law the notice must be posted only in one place, namely, in the office of the clerk of the court, and the applicant for naturalization may live seventy-five miles away from the seat of the court. In such a case who is there seventy-five miles away from the court who will see the notice in order to raise an objection? Under the proposed amendment the notice is posted in the post office of the. locality where the applicant lives, and his neighbours will have an opportunity of finding out what is being done. That is the advantage under the amendment. My hon. friend saw that advantage, but it suited his case not to point it out.
fMr. Stevens.]


Peter McGibbon: Is the minister not aware that hundreds of these country post offices really do not have such a thing as an office; that they hand the mail through a wicket in a door to the person outside?


Peter John Veniot: During the last two years in my tour from the Atlantic to the Pacific I have visited a great many post offices.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Peter John Veniot: I made the tour in the
discharge of my duty and I visited many of the offices.


An hon. MEMBER:: That accounts for the casualties.


Peter John Veniot: And there will be more if same of them continue to do as they have been doing in the past, stealing the public money. That is how many of the casualties occur. As regards the country post offices with the small revenues as stated by my hon. friend, there are not as many as he would lead the committee to believe. There are about four thousand post offices with a revenue of less than $150 a year, about two thousand with a revenue between $150 and $400 a year, about three thousand with a revenue between S400 and $1,000, and in the remainder the revenue is above $1,000. I just wish to make that correction, because I felt that the hon. gentleman was leaving the wrong impression on the committee.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: After listening to
the excellent speech delivered by the Secretary of State last night I did not think it would be necessary for me to supplement his remarks by any of my own; but I have been privileged to live for nearly fifty years in the west under two systems of naturalization and I have had an opportunity of judging the merits of each system. Prior to 1914 the method was very simple. The leader of the opposition says that it was capable of abuse, but I do not know anything that cannot be abused if you want to abuse it. We had a system there which was very, very simple and easy to understand. Of course if anybody wanted to abuse it, it could be abused just like anything else. I have made out hundreds of these applications myself and sent them to the court, where they were examined and posted, and then sent on to Ottawa before the certificates were finally issued. Then we had another system that we tried out, and the effect of it was to throw such restrictions around the naturalization of new settlers that many of the settlers have remained disfranchised to this day. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We

Naturalization Act
have been eating it a few years now, and we
know what the results are, Mr. Chairman, we all know what the effect of disfranchising the Uitlanders in South Africa was, and we can imagine the feeling of those who believe that they are eligible for naturalization, and yet are prevented from obtaining it by one kind of restriction and another, although we are professing to extend to them the right hand of citizenship. What have been those restrictions? Instead of sending the document to the courts, as in the early days, and having them established there, they had to go themselves in person to the courts. It became a new species of sport, running down a judge and never knowing where and when you were going to find him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the sort of thing the Minister of Justice laughs at.


William Richard Motherwell: I know what I am talking about. My hon. friend said that he knew what he was talking about when there was all this kind of slippery work going on-


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
desires to infer that I had anything to do with the crooked work, he will withdraw that
statement at once.


William Richard Motherwell: I said nothing of
the kind. The hon. gentleman said that he wras familiar with it, that he was associated-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can say that the party
the minister belongs to benefited by it in Saskatchewan in 1905.


William Richard Motherwell: That has always
been a sore point with my hon. friend. We got there in 1905, and we are there yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is you
would like to remain there by the same methods.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
does not need to talk about methods.


Peter McGibbon: You are where you are
because of Athabaska.


William Richard Motherwell: Hon. gentlemen
can picture the difficulty of many of our new settlers in hunting for a judge. Whether he lives along the same line of railway as the settler or across country, the fact remains that many of our judges are so inaccessible, especially in those districts where you find the pioneers, in the frontier districts, that these settlers are to all intents and purposes disfranchised. Now is that wise? You can talk until you are black in the face about the theory of it, but I am giving the practical side of it, and if we are going to
build up a contented country and give to our new settlers the privilege of citizenship that we promised them, we should not put obstructions in their way. That is all there is to it.
The tendency of the Conservative party, since ever I knew it, always has been just a little restrictive about the franchise, and I can remember the time when it was not only restrictive, but in 1917 it was actually selective. Having regard to that well-known predisposition of my hon. friends opposite, we should not be surprised at the attitude they are taking to-day, because they are only running true to form. I would have been astonished had they taken any other course. On the other hand, it may be that the Liberal party has been a little too lenient, if you like, but if we are to err, is not that the proper side on which to err, in the interests of peace and good government and the encouragement of people to come here? We are not going to get settlers to come here if you disfranchise them that way, and in many other ways that I do not need to refer to now. That is one of the deterrents to immigration, for settlers to find out that they are not treated as citizens when they should be so treated. I am giving the faots, Mr. Chairman, as I know them to be, and every resident in the west knows them to be the facts, and knows that many people in the west who are really eligible to vote are not enfranchised, and will not be, until they are given better facilities for finding the court and the judge where they can make out the necessary documents before getting the certificate.
Another point. On the frontier, where our new settlers are, is not the place where you find the judges. They are in our larger towns and cities, in the centres of civilization, while our immigrants are away on the frontier, not only one hundred or one hundred and fifty but sometimes over two hundred miles away. What is the use of telling that man about the advantages of naturalization and being a citizen of Canada, when the judge is practically inaccessible to him? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the new law should be changed in this respect. We have tried the two methods and have seen how they work out. If my hon. friends opposite have any other reason why they do not want to extend the franchise to these new settlers, they should advance a better reason than they have given to the house to-night. I am in favour of this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is an entirely new measure. It is different from and at variance with the bill as introduced, and the bill should be reprinted
Naturalization Act

before we go further. The bill is not out of committee, and we do not purpose that it shall leave the committee to-night. The measure that was originally introduced was a measure to repeal certain sections. The measure now before the house is to set up a new method by which notice may be given. That is the bill that we are asked to report, and no notice was given of this amendment. There was sent across to me this evening, after the minister had spoken, a section that in my judgment is at variance, as I read it, with some other sections of the bill which are not repealed. Has the Minister of Justice considered the relation of this section to other sections of the bill?
The minister has not yet told this house the one thing we have insisted upon knowing, and which we purpose to know some time before this house prorogues. How does he intend to obtain the knowledge that will enable him to exercise his discretion? That question has been asked over and over and over again. At present it is obtained by a judge. The minister says that he is not going to do it himself; therefore he must delegate the power. To whom is he going to delegate it? We have asked for that information. No minister will deny that it is a reasonable request, least of all the Minister of Justice. There is the present provision, and you are going to do it some other way. What is that other way? The posting which the Postmaster General and the Minister of Agriculture referred to has reference only to the notice, which is but one feature of the transaction. It is only to the notice to the world-we will use the broad term-which comes about by posting it in post offices. But how does the minister propose to satisfy himself upon these three points, the standard points fixed by convention with Great Britain, and which are in operation in every part of the king's dominions so far as the self-governing communities are concerned: (a) residence; (b) character; (c) adequacy of knowledge of either the English or the French language? How does he intend to satisfy himself on those points, having regard to the fact that there was (a) a judicial inquiry and (b) a supplementary inquiry by the officers of the department under the Secretary of State involving, if you will, homestead inspectors, mounted police and others, to whom the facts were sent in order that they might verify them. I repeat, how does the minister propose to deal with it?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have tried to explain
that several times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think you have not
yet.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend has just
stated my reply in putting his question, that now there are two inquiries. Well, the one conducted by the department is going to be maintained. We have to find out that the applicant has met all the requirements. He will fill in a very extensive form, as I have already stated, covering all the information required under the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same form as you
have now?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. That will be sworn to as it is now. When it reaches the department we are in a position, through the Immi-gation department, to satisfy ourselves as to the residence requirement. The other two points as to character and knowledge of one of the official languages-the two points on which some of the learned judges have stated clearly that they cannot pronounce-we will have to investigate as we do now, either through the mounted police or the homestead inspectors or by officers of the department. This is being done now; every case that comes from the courts is investigated in that way by the department. Until satisfied through that inquiry, for which we have the full machinery, the Secretary of State will not grant a certificate. Perhaps I have not sufficiently emphasized this point. In case of a certificate being granted under the present system, or under the system that will be in effect after the passage of this bill, there is always power to cancel it if it is discovered later on that the facts have not been properly brought to the attention of the department. So after all there is no great change proposed as to the way in which the department will require the necessary information. It is the necessary information that is now required. What we object to now is that we can only apply this procedure in cases where the courts have reported favourably. In a certain number of cases we have evidence before us that the courts were wrong. Thereupon the applicants may go before another judge.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under the statute at present an application is made to a court, and the judge decides whether or not it shall be granted. I understand, of course, that the Secretary of State may not accept the decision

Naturalization Act
for other reasons, but under the law the judge decides whether the applicant is qualified. Now, in my constituency of St. Lawrenee-St. George, where hundreds of such applications are made from time to time, if a judge of the superior court of the district of Montreal, after investigation and having had the applicant before him, declares that all the conditions of the law have been complied with, does the Secretary of State personally make a further investigation before granting his certificate?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Certainly the department
does.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What does the department
inquire into-as to whether the applicant is qualified under the act after the judge has declared him qualified?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In a number of cases the
information gathered by the department is brought before the court to enable the judge to arrive at his decision.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is another thing.


William Alves Boys: Do I understand the minister
to say that in every case after an investigation is made and a report sent to the department by a judge, he or someone in his department institutes a separate inquiry? If he says that -and I so understood him-when the committee meets again I wish he would tell me of a solitary inquiry made in the county of Simcoe-and I refer to it as a county about which I know something-by the department after a report by the judge.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In not a single case has
a certificate been granted where there was not an individual file of information concerning the applicant'.


William Alves Boys: I appreciate that an application must be made, and that it is sent down here. But I feel sure the minister stated that the department itself made an independent investigation in every case. I am not saying it is not so, but I never heard of it in my county, and I do not believe it has been the practice there. If the minister did say so and intends to stick to it, when the bill is next before us I would ask him to name one case in the county of Simcoe where there has been a separate inquiry made by the department. It should not take a clerk more than ten minutes to produce the information if it is available.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Agriculture addressed himself to the question of
voting. We are not dealing with voting. Voting is not an attribute of citizenship. A man may be a British subject and still not have a right to vote. The privy council decided that in the Tommy Homma case, where a Japanese who had been naturalized claimed the right to vote, notwithstanding the fact that the province of British Columbia had de-cleared by legislation that he could not vote. Citizenship and franchise are not the same things, and we have been endeavouring in this discussion to deal with the question of citizenship and not of voting. If there are inconveniences in connection with voting, they can easily be remedied by the applicant who desires to vote coming within the law. We are endeavouring to assert what Sir Wilfrid Laurier asserted, that the basis of naturalization in Canada has been a judicial inquiry. That is what he said in his speech on the Naturalization Act. I have not the time to determine when the first naturalization statute was passed, but I do say this, that until the introduction of this bill the Liberal party had expressed itself in the house as being in favour of a judicial investigation in regard to naturalization. Is it possible that all these sixty years of history in connection with the matter should be undone? It is not a question of Conservatism or Toryism. It is purely a question that affects this whole country regardless of party, and when the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) desires to compare the position of the Uitlanders in the Transvaal some years ago with the position that prevails in Canada to-day, I find it a little difficult to follow him

a difficulty that I should think must be felt by most hon. members. We have a Franchise Act that confers the right to vote on all British subjects under certain conditions of residence. Whether a man becomes a British subject or not he himself must determine; and if in the province of Saskatchewan there are difficulties about the courts, I desire to tell him that there is not a single constituency in Alberta, whether on the frontier or otherwise, where there are not district courts to which all persons may resort with respect to claims up to $600, and the judges in those courts have jurisdiction with respect to naturalization. In the province-
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday Evening Sittings
Wednesday, May 2, 1928