1928-04-30

[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth (final) reports of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems.-Mr. Power.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved:: That 500 copies in English and 250 copies in French of that portion of the return tabled on April 19 respecting diversion of water at Chicago, not already in print, be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: It does occur to me, Mr. Speaker,
that if only those portions that are already in print-


Charles A. Stewart: All but
those already in print.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A number of the documents attached to the report are already in print, and they should be treated as a whole.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will let this motion stand I will consider what he says.
Motion stands.



EDMONTON, DUNVEGAN AND BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY MOTION THAT BILL BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved:: That all unopposed private bills placed on the order paper for consideration from 8 to 9 p.m. on Tuesday, the 1st of May, 1928, be then given precedence over other bills.
My purpose in moving this motion, Mr. Speaker, is to enable the house to pass-without prejudice to other private bills-bill No. 57, which stands as order No. 56 under private bills. It is "an act respecting the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company." I am asking the house to table this course because of a telegram I have received from the Department of Railways and Telephones in Alberta, reading as follows:
Please advise when sanction of E D and B C legislation authorising extensions of main line and Grande Prairie branch may be expected. Very essential that construction of Grande Prairie branch extension be started at once in order that grading be completed before winter owing to advanced state of settlement in

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
locality to be served by proposed railway extension. In public interest that railway facilities be provided early as possible. Wire reply.
(Signed) Jno Callaghan.
I may say that an early start on this railway will make a difference of a season and accommodate settlers who are now living from thirty to seventy miles from railway facilities and raising from a million to a million and a quarter bushels of grain. Consequently the Alberta government, having made an appropriation for this railway extension, are anxious to start work as quickly as possible.
The bill finds itself in its present position through a collision with the rules, which apparently none of us thought of when we asked on April 17 that it stand. When the bill was in committee a mistake was discovered in the wording of a certain amendment. Let me illustrate my point by quoting from Hansard of that date:
Mr. Dunning: Ferhaps the hon. member for Peace River would consent to leave the bill in committee in order that he may determine what amendment should be made.
Mr. Cahill: If the figures are not right there must have been an error on my part in putting them down. In that case I hardly think it necessary to give notice of an amendment.
Mr. Kennedy: I am quite certain that in subsection (a) the words should be seventy-eight or seventy-nine. And in subsection (b) seventy-seven or seventy-eight.
Mr. Dunning: If my hon. friend is prepared to move an amendment now, in view of the fact that apparently there is a clerical error in the record we may dispense with the usual notice. In any event the mistake must be corrected by some formal action on the part of this committee. I suggest to my hon. friend that he leave the bill in committee in order to enable him to confirm his impression, or he may move the necessary substitution now.
Therefore I would ask the house to agree to this motion.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Can my hon. friend tell us what bills on the list of private bills are the unopposed bills to which he refers?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think that would be
quite simple. We could start in and if any bill is opposed simply let it stand. It would mean very little delay for opposed bills.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: But a bill cannot be called unless
it is to be unopposed. By what standard are we to judge it is unopposed; who will tell us that there will be no opposition in order that the bill may be called?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The opposition will develop as we go along. If it is impossible to proceed under the rules, have the government any objection to this bill being read tomorrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
reason why one private bill should be given preference over any other. The government is anxious that all of these bills should be reached, and if hon. gentlemen will co-operate with us we will do our utmost to expedite the final disposition of all the private bills.
I do not think we can single out one particular bill and at the same time disregard all the others.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, this bill would have gone through the house the other night except for a clerical error-purely unintentional-on the part of the chairman of the railway committee. At the time he admitted that it was his error. Therefore I think this bill is in an entirely different category from the other private bills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion is not wholly unreasonable in view of what has transpired in this particular case. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was not in the house the other evening when the bill was being considered. It would have gone to its third reading, but the figures indicating a township seemed to be uncertain, and the minister then in charge of the house suggested that the bill stand. By standing it lost its place. It is a public measure in the sense that it is desired by the province of Alberta. Under the circumstances it seems to me we might let the bill go through. I think Hansard shows that the minister said he would suggest the measure stand.


Mr. DUNNING:: No. I was the minister concerned and I will deal with it in a moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) read it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry my hon. friend apparently did not hear Hansard correctly. What I suggested to the hon. member for Peace River was that, if he was certain enough of the figures which required to be put in, notice could be waived and the figures changed then and there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: But in the interests of accuracy he might desire the bill to remain in committee, in which case I was agreeable, as Minister of Railways, dealing with these matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is quite right.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it is not quite fair to take the view that the government requested that the bill stand. There was certainly no such intention.
Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway


Richard Bedford Bennett: What happened was that the hon. member for Peace River was not prepared to take the responsibility for saying, "Change the figures", until he had had an oportunity to verify them by reference to the proper authorities.


Charles Avery Dunning: Right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the Minister of Railway said that if that was the situation perhaps the hon. gentleman would be well advised to let it stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under those circumstances, and having regard to the public character of the measure, I should fancy that the house might, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who after all, is in control of the chamber-does not think otherwise, adopt the motion that the house proceed to the consideration of that bill on private members' day.


Ernest Lapointe: Of that particular bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To meet the hon. member's view, at eight o'clock to-morrow evening a motion could be made that the house consider that bill, which would have been disposed of but for the unfortunate circumstance to which I have alluded.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was in the house at the time, but I did not recognize at the moment the fact that it was with reference to that particular discussion that this motion was being put. Certainly, if the house is agreeable to accepting this motion unanimously, the government, in view of the circumstances that have been mentioned, would have no objection to that procedure being adopted in respect of the bill in question. I can see no real objection to considering the bill under these circumstances. It was simply due to this clerical error at the time that it was held up, and I suggest that my hon. friend withdraw his motion, on the understanding that when the house meets at eight o'clock to-morrow evening a motion will be made to consider it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If this bill is considered to-morrow night I am willing to withdraw the motion.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: This, I submit, is not fair to those hon. members who also have private bills awaiting the consideration of the house. We have had to wait two days in succession-a Friday and a Tuesday-for private bills to come up. They have been held up. These private bills have had no oportunity of being considered by the house.

I remember perfectly well the incident that occurred the other evening, and the hon. member who said "Stand" was the hon. gentleman himself. Why therefore should we be deprived of our rights at the present time? I may point out that there is an important bill of mine first on the order paper for consideration of the house to-morrow evening at eight o'clock. Why should I give way, notwithstanding the rules of the house, when my bill stands first for consideration? I do not see any reason and I protest.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (South Vancouver):: I rise to supplement the views of the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). There are on the order paper other bills which, to a number of us, are just as important as the measure in which the hon. member who is moving this motion is interested. I do not see why there should be a departure from the ordinary rules and orders in dealing with these bills as a class by singling out one particular bill in order to accommodate some hon. member. I suggest that the proper, procedure would be to segregate the divorce bills from the other bills and, if you are going to give special attention to any one, then consider those measures, other than divorce bills in their order.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I do not think the hon. member for Rimouski, and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, are quite correct in their premises in this matter. There is no special privilege asked for this bill. What really happened was this: there was an error in the work of the King's Printer in regard to a numeral. When the bill came before the house the minister in charge did not know whether it was correct or whether the statement of those in this corner was right. It was found that the position taken by us in this corner was the correct one. Through no fault of ours but by reason of an error on the part of the King's Printer, or whoever prints these bills, and possibly at least on the part of the chairman of the railway committee, the bill has been unfairly put at the foot of the list. Had the bill been properly printed it would have gone through the house without question the other night. It is not unfair therefore to suggest that in view of most peculiar and unusual circumstances such as these the public interest could be better served if the house were considerate, in this particular instance at any rate. I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Rimouski on principle as regards the consideration of these bills. I do not think that any bill should be given precedence over others, and for that reason I voted the other night against

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I did not consider it fair by a motion, after we had amended the rules of the house, deliberately to move that one particular bill be given prior consideration. This however is not a parallel case. In this instance an error has occurred inadvertently, and as everyone recognizes the purely technical character of the objection, I think the house should be willing to adopt at least the peaceful attitude suggested by the government.


Eugène Fiset: Once again I want to protest against this procedure. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has read the house a lesson, but I was here the other night and I heard the minister remark that the bill was, practically speaking, through. The hon. member interested in the bill was the one who said, " Stand ". He insisted that the bill should stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Eugène Fiset: I was here; I know what was said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said that if there was any doubt as to the correctness of the description, it had better stand.


Eugène Fiset: My hon. friend did not hear exactly what was said. I myself suggested that this was simply a printer's error and, I added, "The bill is through; let it go through ". The hon. member then said "Stand".


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: I was in the house at the time the question came up and there is no doubt at all in my mind that the bill fathered by the hon. member for Peace River would have been carried had it not been for certain numbers in regard to certain townships and so on, in dispute as between the Minister of Railways and-


Charles A. Stewart: The Minister of Railways was not disputing it.


James Arthurs: The Minister of Railways said he was.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Arthurs: Very well. At any rate
it was in dispute as regards the numbers of certain townships, and that was the only reason for deferring the bill. The hon. member for Peace River is at the present moment trying to have the bill given precedence over othr bills, although he did not make this request in the first place. I think the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) would be well advised to accept a fair request of this kind; otherwise, if this house is disposed to dispute any bill, it might be disposed to dispute that of the hon. member for Rimouski, and another hang-up would occur.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	If I may be permitted to clarify the situation with respect to this bill, it was a private bill with which the government had nothing to do. It went to the railway committee in the usual way and there, following a discussion,, was amended in ink by the chairman in connection with certain numerals. When the bill returned there was some question as to whether the numerals describing certain townships were correct or not, and I think the hon. member for Peace River himself raised the question.


Mr. MANION:: Were they correct?


Charles Avery Dunning: I could have no knowledge as to whether they were correct or not; the bill was not a government measure. The numerals in question have since been determined not to have been correct. The chairman of the railway committee, who is not present to-day, stated on that occasion that if there was an error doubtless it could be attributed to him. To avoid the necessity for formal notice, he was willing to take the responsibility of having made a clerical error himself, and under those circumstances I suggested that if the hon. member for Peace River was sure enough of the correct numerals, we might decide to let the bill go through without the customary notice of motion for an amendment to a private bill. In the interests of accuracy, my hon. friend from Peace River being Scotch, and desiring to be absolutely sure, he decided, and properly, to let the bill stand. As to its coming up again first to-morrow night, I of course have no objection. If the same attitude is taken towards this bill as is taken towards other private bills by hon. members in the opposite corner of the house and by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), those who object can easily talk for the full hour to-morrow night. I distinctly remember that on two occasions the hon. member for Toronto Northwest announced that he was going to talk the full hour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is only allowed to
speak for forty minutes.


Charles Avery Dunning: He definitely stated that he was going to talk it out, so that unless there is practically unanimous consent to enable my hon. friend to go on, nothing the
Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway

government can do to-morrow night can affect the issue. Personally I am desirous of seeing this bill out of the way, and it would have been out of the way only for this little clerical error. I will do all I can and I am sure the government will do everything possible to expedite the passage of this bill, but other members have their rights and if hon. members in that corner insist on exercising their rights, as they do quite properly, they cannot object if other members on this side of the house or across the way who are interested in private bills exercise their rights in like manner.


Eugène Fiset: Since I appear-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon.
gentleman has already spoken; we are not in committee of the whole now.


Eugène Fiset: Since I appear to
be the only member who has entered a protest, I will withdraw my objection.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I would like to suggest a solution to the whole difficulty. Why could we not start sitting on Wednesday nights from now on, to take up private bills on those nights and get rid of them?


John Frederick Johnston: What is the
pleasure of the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that my hon. friend has agreed to withdraw his motion on the understanding that when the house meets to-morrow evening to consider private bills a motion will be made to have the bill in which he is interested given precedence, and the government will support that motion. Of course, the decision rests with the house.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Then I will withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacNUTT:: What was the tonnage of butter imported into Canada by steamers of the Canadian merchant marine during the calendar years of 1926-27, from Australia, and from New Zealand; (a) to Halifax; (b) to Vancouver; (c) to Montreal; (d) to any other ports in Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: Australia	New Zealand
(a) 1926			nil
1927		.. .. nil	313 tons
(b) 1926			nil
1927			nil
(c) 1926		.. .. nil	nil
1927			nil
(d) 1926			nil
1927			nil


RAIL AND RIVER COAL COMPANY
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	What quantity of coal, if any, was sup. plied the Canadian National Railways by the Rail and River Coal Company, of the United States of America in the year 1927?
2.	What price was paid for the coal supplied during said period?
3.	At what points in Canada was the said coal delivered?
4.	Has any effort been made by the Canadian National Railway's or any of its subsidiaries to dispose of the capital stock of the Rail and River Coal Company? If so, state particulars.


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	429,882 tons, of which 307,373 tons were used on Canadian lines-the balance on lines Detroit and west.
2.	$1.8187 per ton, f.o.b. cars, Bellaire, Ohio.
3.	Sarnia, 160,963 tons; Niagara frontier, 146,410 tons.
4.	This property came to Canadian National Railways upon acquisition of the Grand Trunk. The question of its disposal to others has not been considered.


HALIFAX COI.D STORAGE PLANT
Mr. SHORT:: 1.	Does the property on which the proposed new cold storage plant is to be erected at Halifax, Nova Scotia, by private enterprise, belong to the Canadian National Railways or to the crown ?
2.	Did the Canadian National Railways, or the crown lease this property to the cold storage company; if so, at what price, also terms of lease?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Land acquired by the crown for ocean terminals.
2.	7.253 acres of land and land covered by water leased by Department of Railways and Canals to Victor Montague Drury, for cold and dry storage purposes, from April 6, 1927, to April 5, 2026, at rental of one hundred dollars per annum.


CARILLONXEUR-PERCIVAL PRICE
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Is one Pereival Price employed by the government? If so, in what capacity and at what salary?

Questions
2.	What specific services does he perform for this salary?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to permit this employee to take two months' leave of absence before he has been employed twelve months?
4.	If so, will the same privileges be extended to scientists and research workers in other departments who have given faithful service for many years and whose work would be benefited by a trip to Europe?
5.	In the absence of said employee does the government intend to permit the substitution of alien labour in this connection?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	0a) Yes. (b) Carillonneur. (c) $3,000 per annum.
2.	Giving formal public recitals upon the carillon of the Peace tower at such times as are required by the Department of Public Works, these performances entailing in preparation the actual arranging and writing out in manuscript form of the music rendered, as there is no music published for the instrument and hardly any two carillons are of similar registration and voicing; the inspecting and supervising of the making of adjustments and minor repairs to the carillon; and attending to the correspondence (extra-departmental) regarding the carillon.
3.	Yes.
4.	This is the only position of its kind in the service and cannot be compared with any other but only to conditions attaching to other carillonneurs.
5.	If a substitute is required it may be necessary to procure one outside of Canada, as there may be no other carillonneur sufficiently trained available.


BRIC.DEN, ONTARIO, POSTMASTER
Mr. MANION:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at the village of Brigden, Ontario?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Is he a returned soldier?
4.	If not, did any returned soldiers apply for this position?
5.	Was the appointee recommended by the Civil Service Commission as their first choice?


Mr. YENIOT:: 1.	William Howard MacDonald.
2.	15th September, 1927.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What sums were voted by parliament for Olympic games since 1918, and who received said grants?
2.	Were these grants an accountable or nonaccountable expenditure?
3.	What amount of said grant in each year was spent on Olympic contestants (a) on rowing, fb) on hockey, (c) track, (d) lacrosse, (e) other branches of sport?
4.	How many (a) contestants, and (b) noncontestants, were there at each Olympic who had their expenses or part thereof paid, and the names of non-contestants receiving expenses, and amounts in each case?
5.	Ts there any audit of these accounts by the Auditor General? If not, why?
6.	How many took part overseas at these games on behalf of Canada, and what events were won at each Olympic?
7.	What portion of these various grants was spent (a) in Canada in training; (b) overseas, in each case ?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for Mr. Robb):: 1.	1920 (Antwerp), $15,000; 1924 (Paris), $25,000; 1928 (Amsterdam), $26,000. Payments were made to the Canadian Olympic Committee.
2 and 5. The assistance given was by way of contribution. The government did not control or audit the expenditure.
3,	4, 6 and 7. No information.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL MINES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to a sworn statement at Washington, D.C.. made by Oliver It. Eaton, attorney for the Mine Workers' Union, before Congress to the following fact, that Sir Henry Thornton and the Canadian National Railways owns coal mines in Western Virginia"?
2.	If so, where are these mines located, when were they purchased, and for what purpose?


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with this
question I call attention to the fact that a similar question has been answered before to-day, and question No. 3 on the order paper to-day also deals with the same matter. I suggest that it is not reasonable to keep answering the same question three or four times.


John Frederick Johnston: Question
dropped.


DUMPING DUTY ON FRUIT AND VEGETABLES
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Has order in council No. 1088 been rescinded and cancelled?
2.	When was same rescinded and cancelled?
3.	When did the rescission and cancellation become effective?
4.	Has the tariff board made any recommendation regarding protection for early Canadian fruit and vegetable growers, seasonable or otherwise?
5.	If so, what was the substance of such recommendation?
6.	Is the government aware that resolutions are being passed by boards of trade, town and city councils, chapters of the Daughters of the Empire, and other bodies, protesting against the government's action in rescinding order in council 1088 ?

Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	March 19, 1928.
3.	March 19, 1928.
4.	The subject is under enquiry.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Some resolutions have been received.


CHARLES PINARD
Mr. TUMMON:: 1.	Is Charles Pinard employed in the Department of Public Works?
2.	How many days was he absent from duty in the last fiscal year?
3.	How many days sick leave did he have in that period and what dates?
4.	For how many days did he draw pay in the last fiscal year?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	8.
3.	(a) 2A; (b) March 20 d day), 21 and
22.
4.	366 days.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-RUSSELL HOUSE BLOCK
Mr. COTNAM:: 1.	Who were the former owners of the Russell house block?
2.	Were any of such owners members of the Federal District Commission?
3.	What legal expenses were incurred by the expropriation proceedings in connection with the Russell house block?
4.	To what firm or individual will such fees be paid?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING (For Mr. Robb):: 1.	The Russell Company.
2.	No.
3.	No accounts yet rendered.
4.	Murphy, Fisher, Clark and Robertson.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-EXPROPRLATIONS
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	What property has been purchased or expropriated by the government or the Federal District Commission in Ottawa, during the past three years?
2.	From whom was the said property purchased?
3.	What was the price paid in each case?
4.	Who acted as agents in the transactions and what commissions or other fees were received in each case?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to the Federal District Commission :
1.	(a) Dey's arena, Laurier avenue north; (b) Russell house and theatre, Sparks street and Queen street; (c) Property of C. W. Mitchell estate, corner Queen and Elgin streets; (d) Property of Francis McDougall

estate, between the Russell theatre and the Mitchell property; (e) Lot 65, Slater street north.
2.	(a) E. A. Sherwood; (b) Russell Company; (c) C. W. Mitchell estate; (d) Francis McDougall estate; (e) Bate Realty Company.
3.	(a) Dey's arena: $60,000;	(b) Russell
house and theatre: $1,125,000; (c) Mitchell property: $75,000; (d and e) McDougall and Bate properties are both under expropriation.
4.	(a) L. P. Sherwood who was paid $224.70 for legal services; (b, c, d, e) Murphy, Fisher, Clark and Robertson acted as solicitors for the Federal District Commission in the purchase and expropriation of the other properties. No payments to date. With respect to purchases by government other than Federal District Commission, see answer to question 30.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: 1.	What price was paid by the government for each of the following properties in the city of Ottawa which were taken over for improvement purposes: (a) Wellington street south and Sparks street north, (b) Sparks street south and Queen street north (Russell house), (c) Bate building, (d) Birkett building, (e) Ottawa Transportation building, (f) Canadian International Paper Company property, Sussex street?
2.	WTiat legal fees were paid in connection with each of these transactions, and to whom?
3.	What commissions were paid in connection with the above mentioned transactions, and to whom?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for Mr. Robb):: 1.	(b) Russell house and theatre: $1,125,000. (c) Bate warehouse: lease expired; no payment made for property, (d) Birkett building: in hands of solicitors for adjustment, (e) Ottawa Transportation building: lease expired; no payment made.
2.	No payments to date.
3.	None.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-BRIDGE AT REMIC RAPIDS
Mr. WILSON (Wentworth):: 1.	What steps have been taken by the Ottawa Federal District Commission to secure property on the Quebec side of the Ottawa river for roadways, approach and landing for the bridge across the Ottawa river at Remic rapids?
2.	What is the area of the property proposed to be acquired?
3.	Who owns the said property and has expropriation proceedings been commenced? If so, what price was offered by the commission to the owners?
4.	What was the sum paid or agreed to be paid for the said property?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for Mr. Robb):: 1.	Right of way has been secured.
2.	0.8415 acre donated by the Hon. Thos. Ahearn and 6.42 acres purchased from A. M.

Unopposed Motions for Papers
Mackarell. Authority has been secured by order of the Board of Railway Commissioners for a grade crossing over the right of way held jointly by .the Hull Electric Railway and the Pontiac & Pacific Ry. (C.P.R.). This provides right of way from river shore to Aylmer road.
3.	No expropriation. Purchase arranged by private negotiations.
4.	$15,000 for the Mackarell property.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-MACKARELL PROPERTY
Mr. WILSON (Wentworth):: How much was paid by the Ottawa Federal District Commission (formerly Ottawa Improvement Commission) for the Mackarell property on the Quebec side of the Ottawa river near Remic rapids?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 


$15,000. FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-NEW EDINBURGH MILLS
Mr. WILSON (Wentworth):: 1.	Has the government or the Ottawa Improvement Commission or its successor the Federal District Commission or any other person or commission associated -with the government taken steps to procure property known as the New Edinburgh mills and situated at Rideau falls at the mouth of the Rideau river?
2.	If so, in what manner is the property being secured? Is it by expropriation under the Expropriation Act or the Railway Act or by private purchase?
3.	Who are the present owners of the said property and what is the area to be acquired?
4.	Has any sum been offered for the said property, and if so, what is the amount?
5.	What is the horse-power of the waterpower situated on the said property and is such power rights included in the purchase price?
6.	Has any offer been made to the government or other persons dealing with this matter on behalf of the public for such water-power rights, and if so, by whom, and on what terms and price?
7.	Has an order in council been passed dealing with the proposed purchase of the New Edinburgh mills and adjacent property? If so, what is the date of the said order in council ?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By private purchase.
3.	(a) The Gatineau Company Limited.
Ob) Approximately 21 acres'.
4.	(a) Yes.
(b) $525,000.
5.	(a) Approximately 2400 H.P.
(b) Yes.
6.	No.
7.	Yes, March 30, 1928.
56103-158J



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Have any lawyers or law firms been employed by the Dominion government, or any departments thereof, in the city of Quebec during the fiscal year 1926-27?
2.	If so: (a) by what departments; (b) who are those lawyers or firms; (c) what were the nature and extent of the services rendered: (d) what remuneration was paid in each case?


ASSISTANCE TO IMMIGRANTS
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Does the Canadian government bring in immigrants from the British isles and foreign countries, and supply them with free land for settlement?
2.	If not, on what terms do immigrants receive such lands?
3.	Is any monetary assistance afforded said immigrants other than land settlement inducements. and if so, what are they?
4.	Are like inducements, if any, as regards free land and other assistance offered to Canadians?
5.	If not. why not?


CIVIL SERVICE- DISMISSALS
Mr. KAISER:: 1.	How many members of the civil service in 1927 were dismissed for cause?
2.	How many of such persons were contributing to the superannuation fund?
3. How many were refunded their contribution?
4.	How many were refused such refund by the treasqry board?
5.	How many cases are now pending decision?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. STEVENS:: For a return of copies of all correspondence, memoranda, decisions and recommendations, passing between the Department of National Revenue and the Civil Service Commission and any and all other parties relating to the appointment of a law officer or solicitor to the department in the place of Noel Chasse, deceased.



DISMISSAL OF P. A. SAULNIER

Mr. SHORT:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence and orders in council relating to the dismissal of P. A. Saulnier, late customs sub-collector at Church Point. Digby county, Nova Scotia, and to the appointment of his successor in said office.



DISMISSAL OF H. S. DOWNIE

Harry Bernard Short: For a copy of all documents, correspondence and orders in council relating to the dismissal

Wednesday Evening Sittings
of H. S. Downie, returned soldier, late national revenue collector at Margaretsville, Annapolis county. Nova Scotia, and the appointment of his successor in said office.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LANDS

Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, agreements and all other documents relating to the sale of the Canadian National Railways' old belt line lands in the Humber valley, Toronto, including' all correspondence with the late Sir Adam Beck and the hydro for purchase thereof, and in 1928 with any other person or persons for the recent sale of this valuable radial right of way for $18,000 without public tender when the Canadian National Railways all along refused to sell the same to the hydro and city for radial purposes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would point out that
this resolution contains matter which should not be contained in a motion of this kind; the last two lines contain statements and what might be called arguments. I know nothing of the matters involved, but I do not think it is within the right of any hon. member under the rules of the house to include statements such as are contained in the last two lines of this motion in a matter of this kind.


John Frederick Johnston: Stands.



DISMISSAL OF FRANK AMAS

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of correspondence regarding the dismissal of Frank Amas of Qu'Appelle from the meterological service, together with a copy of all charges made against the said Frank Amas, if any, and a copy of the proceedings of the investigation, if any, in connection with the said charges, and a copy of the recommendation for dismissal, if any. Also copy of all correspondence relating to the appointment of John Miller of Qu'Appelle to the position of observer in the place of Frank Amas. Also a statement setting forth the age, capacity and training of the said John Miller for the appointment.



ICE BREAKING-FORT WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR

Mr. COWAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, applications, telegrams, in connection with the contract for ice breaking in the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William, dated the 1st day of October, 1923, and made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and also for a copy of the advertising for tenders, tenders, and the contract itself.



DISMISSAL OF HOWARD ROBAR

Mr. ERNST:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to the dismissal of Howard Robar as postmaster at North River in the county of Lunenburg, and the appointment of his successor.
[Mr. Short.1



NEW GERMANY-NORTH RIVER MAIL CONTRACT

William Gordon Ernst: For a copy of all correspondence, tenders and other documents relating to the current contract for the mail route from New Germany to North River in the county of Lunenburg.


William Gordon Ernst: I would ask leave to withdraw this motion, Mr. Speaker.	.


John Frederick Johnston: Motion withdrawn.



BARSS CORNER-NEW GERMANY MAIL CONTRACT

William Gordon Ernst: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, tenders, letters and other documents relating to the current contract for the mail route between Barss Corner and New Germany in the county of Lunenburg.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. IC. ANDERSON (Halton): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture when I may expect a reply to my question passed as an order for a return on the 14th March, regarding certain employees of the Department of Agriculture.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I will have the matter looked after as soon as possible.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, having reference to the discussions which we have had from time to time about private bills, I suggest to the house that it would possibly facilitate what all of us have in mind in the matter of the expedition of public business, if we were from now on to take Wednesday evening for the purpose of private legislation and give private bills priority on Wednesday after eight o'clock. If there is no opposition to that suggestion, I will have the motion presented in a formal way on Wednesday. In the meantime this intimation may be taken as a notice of motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You mean Wednesday
afternoon?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Wednesday
evening-the house to sit on Wednesday evening.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not prepared for that at the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It may be
taken as a notice of motion to be considered Wednesday.

Immigration Act


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, many of the members of the house have made engagements for this first Wednesday evening.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 27 consideration in committee of Bill No. 187, to amend the Immigration Act-Mr. Forke-Mr. March in the chair.	.
On section 1-Persons deemed to belong to prohibited classes.
Mr. THORSON:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks with.regard to this bill, notwithstanding the fact that it has been before the house on numerous occasions. I object to section 41 of the Immigration Act as it now stands and I do so on two grounds: first, it discriminates, in my opinion very unfairly, against British subjects who were born outside of Canada; in the second place, the legislation is unnecessary in view of the other provisions of the Immigration Aijt and in view of the provisions of the criminal code and the common law with regard to sedition.
The discrimination, I think, is admitted. The section as it stands places British subjects who were born outside of Canada in an inferior position to aliens who have become naturalized as British subjects in Canada Section 3 of the Immigration Act specifies the classes of persons who are to be regarded as undesirable or prohibited classes. Section 41, which we are now discussing, refers to several classes of offences and provides that the persons who commit those offences shall be deemed to come within the undesirable classes. Section 42 provides for the method of deportation of those who are, under the provisions of the Act, deemed to be undesirable. Section 41 of the act has an important proviso at the end thereof, which I propose to read:
Provided, that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject, either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
Thus it happens that a British subject who comes to Canada is not exempted from the provisions of this act because he cannot be naturalized in Canada. He is a British subject by virtue of his having become such somewhere outside of Canada. So that the section as it reads does not apply to persons who are born in Canada or to aliens who have become naturalized as British subjects in Canada, but it does extend to British subjects who come to Canada from some other part of the empire. It would apply, for example, to anyone who was born in
England or Scotland or any other of the British dominions. British subjects born outside of Canada can never become exempt from the provisions of this section; so that it follows that a naturalized alien may commit any of the offences described in section 41, and he is not deemed to be an undesirable and he cannot be deported; but persons who happen to have been born in England or Scotland who do commit any of the offences described in section 41 are deemed to be undesirable and are subject to deportation. An alien may become naturalized, if I remember the provisions of the Naturalization Act correctly, after five years residence in Canada. He then under the provisions of the Immigration Act is exempt from deportation; but a British subject born outside of Canada cannot never get complete exemption from deportation, no matter how long he resides in Canada. So that you have this situation; even if a naturalized alien commits one of the offences referred to in section 41 and is convicted of that offence after full trial by a jury, he cannot be deported; but a British subject born outside of Canada may commit one of the less important offences referred to in section 41 and he can be deported without any trial, on the mere say-so of a single officer of the department. That is a discrimination which ought not to exist in any British statute. The statute as it stands discriminates in this manner against a British subject born outside of	Canada, and	I	think	the legaleffect of the section is beyond dispute. I will go further and say that the change in the law was deliberately made to make this discrimination possible;	it	was	intendedspecifically	for British subjects born outside
of Canada and for no one else.


James Arthurs: Why?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I will ask the committee
to follow irfe carefully with regard to the history of	the passage	of	this	legislation
through the house and in the comparison which I make between the section as it now stands and the state of the law as it existed prior to the enactment of this section. In the discussion of last year a comparison was made between the state of the law as it is now under the provisions of this section and as it was in 1910 when the Immigration Act was first passed. I do not think that is the comparison which ought to be made. I think the comparison ought to be made between the section as it now stands and the section that was passed in the same session of parliament, because in the session of 1919 two bills were brought in to amend the Immigration Act.
Immigration Act

One of them, which appears in the statutes of 1919 as chapter 25, comprised twenty-six sections including an amendment to section 41. In the same session another bill was introduced which appeai-s as chapter 26 of the statutes of 1919 and it includes only one section, the one which we are now discussing.
The first bill to amend the Immigration Act was comprehensive in its nature and it subjected the Immigration Act to a careful and thorough revision. It was introduced into the house and received first reading on the 7th April, 1919. It received second reading and went into committee on the 29th April. It received third reading on the 12th May. In the senate it received first reading on the 15th May, second reading on the 16th May and third reading on the 4th June. The senate reported the bill with an amendment which I will not discuss but which does not deal with the points which we have under consideration. The senate amendment was concurred in on the 5th June and on the 6th June the bill received royal assent. The section of which we now complain was not included in that bill. The present section 41 was introduced into the House of Commons on the 6th June fifteen minutes before the house was summoned to appear before the senate to hear the royal assent being given to the bills which had passed both houses of parliament prior to that time. It was introduced, received first and second readings, passed through the committee stage and received third reading, all in fifteen minutes.


Mr ARTHURS:: When?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: On the 6th June.


James Arthurs: What year?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: 
Robert James Manion: Just as a matter of information, will the hon. member explain what he means by "railroaded through the House of Commons?"


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think the term has a fairly well-known meaning. What was the reason for this unseemly haste in bringing this bill into legislative effect, that is' within half an hour of its first introduction into the house? I think I am conservative in making that estimate of time. It was law half an hour after it was first introduced into the House of Commons. In Hansard, page 3211, of the 1919 debates, Hon. J. A. Calder, Minister of Immigration, in introducing the bill said:
In the bill which was before this house amending the Immigration Act certain persons who advocated the overthrow of government, the destruction of property, and so on, by violence, were within the prohibited classes. The matter has been inquired into further and the law officers of the crown have advised that the section as it stands does not really cover all that was intended.
What was intended? I have made the Statement that the intention of the amendment was to discriminate against British subjects born outside of Canada, and to enable their deportation without a trial. That is what was intended.
What reasons were given in the House of Commons for the enactment of this measure? The leader of the opposition, Mr. D. D. McKenzie, asked in the course of the debate, "How does the new clause differ from the old?" The hon. member for Gaspe, Mr. APRIL 30, 1928
Immigration Act
Lemieux, later in the course of the debate asked, "Would the minister point out where it differs as he goes along?" To which, Mr. Calder replied, "It is not the easiest thing in the world to do." Then Mr. Calder indicated certain respects in which the bill differed from the bill previously introduced and concurred in by both houses' of parliament dealing with section 41, and he indicated every difference except the difference that is the real difference, the difference of which we are complaining. In order to make that point perfectly clear, it is necessary for me to refer to the state of the law as it existed prior to the passing of this act of which we are complaining. Section 41 as passed previously in the same session commences in this manner:
Whenever any person, other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow by force-
I shall not read the balance. The importance of what I am saying apears from the words which I have just quoted, namely: "Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen" commits the following offences he shall be considered an undesirable. That is, anybody who was a Canadian citizen, no matter how he got his Canadian citizenship, was exempted from deportation under the provisions of the act as it stood prior to the enactment of this section. But the new section 41 commences in this manner: "Every person who commits" the following offences is an undesirable, and it concludes with the proviso:
Provided, that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject, either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
So that the effect of removing the opening words of the old section, "whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen," and the tacking on of the proviso of the new section, is to make a discrimination against British subjects who were born outside of Canada.


James Arthurs: May I ask whether the
hon. gentleman would be in favour of the substitution of section 41 as it stood before being amended by this act?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I shall deal with that
point a little later. The words "Canadian citizen" as used in the Immigration Act have a special significance. The term is defined in paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Immigration Act, as follows:
"Canadian citizen" means-
1.	a person born in Canada who has not become an alien;
2.	a British subject who has Canadian domicile: or,
3.	a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile.
That is, it has a special meaning as it is used in the Immigration Act. The word "domicile" is defined also.


James Arthurs: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to repeat my question? In view of his explanation of what constitutes a Canadian citizen, would he be in favour of substituting the original section 41 for the section which is now under discussion?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have already stated,
and in this I think I have the support of the hon. leader of the opposition, that section 41 is of no value in view of the other provisions of the Immigration Act and of the code. I shall come back to that in a moment.


James Arthurs: That is no answer to the question.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not propose to be
diverted from my line of discussion. The word "domicile" is also defined in the act, in paragraph (d) of section 2, as follows:
"domicile" means the place in which a person has his home, or in which he resides, or to which he returns as his place of permanent abode, and does not mean the place where he resides for a mere special or temporary purpose;
(i)	Canadian domicile can only be acquired, for the purposes of this act, by a person having his domicile for at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein within the meaning of this act;
So that Canadian domicile has a special meaning under this act and must not be confused with the ordinary meaning attached to the word domicile. Therefore, under the old law, a British subject born outside of Canada who had lived in Canada and acquired Canadian domicile, by virtue of his acquisition of Canadian domicile became a Canadian citizen and was exempted from deportation. Now under the new law he is expressly discriminated against because under section 41 every person who commits any of the offences therein mentioned is classed as an undesirable and is liable to deportation without trial; but there is a proviso that the section does not apply to British subjects who are such by virtue of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada. In other words, the British subject born outside of Canada remains constantly liable to deportation, and under another section of the act he can never acquire Canadian domicile in order to exempt himself from deportation under section 41.
I make the statement that in the course of the debate in tho House of Commons when this section was being discussed, all the differences were pointed out to the house except the important ur.d major difference, but the purpose of the amending act was clearly
?498
Immigration Act

indicated in the debate which took place in the senate. I therefore make the statement that legislation of this sort which so unjustly discriminates against one class of British subject is iniquitous legislation and ought not to be tolerated for one moment on the statute books of this parliament.
I think no one will deny that as section 41 now stands there is this discrimination. I would go further and say that section 41 is not needed in view of the other provisions of the Immigration Act and the provisions of the criminal code. Sections 3 and 40 of the Immigration Act sufficiently provide for some of the offences described in section 41. The other offences are, I think, amply provided for by the criminal code. I do not seek to minimize or in any way condone the seriousness of the offences referred to in section 41, but I say advisedly, after careful consideration, that section 41 is not necessary in view of the provisions which we already have in the Immigration Act and in the criminal code. So that the only purpose of maintaining section 41 is to continue the discrimination against British subjects born outside of Canada.
I make that statement with a large measure of support from no less a lawyer than the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He has spoken twice on this subject in previous sessions. In 1926, when a private member, he agreed with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that if section 40 of the Immigration Act were retained-and there is no suggestion that it be not-then section 41 was valueless and of no importance. So there may be no question of this, let me quote this most important statement. It will be found at page 4120 of Hansard of June 7, 1926:
Mr. Lapointe: But we must keep the bill in order to repeal section 41. I am quite willing to agree with the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to allow the bill to read:
"Section 41 of the Immigration Act, chapter 27 of the Statutes of 1910, as enacted by chapter 26 of the statutes of 1919, is repealed."
The rest is certainly covered by section 40.
Mr. Bennett: That is my view.
Earlier in the debate the hon. member for W.est Calgary said:
Then section 41 is of no value at all, or it should be linked up in some way with section 40.
Mr. Cannon: Section 40 covers the case.
Mr. Lapointe: I agree that section 40 would cover the ease, and the only purpose of the bill would be to repeal section 41.
Mr. Bennett: The new section is of no value at all.
Speaking again on this subject last session the language of the hon. member for West

Calgary was somewhat different. At page 2103 of Hansard of April 27, 1927, I find the following:
I do say, sir, that the maintaining of that section upon our statute books was never more necessary than it is to-day.
The same section that was absolutely valueless the year before!


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a mistake. I
was referring to the section as a whole, not a part of it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have no doubt that
my hon. friend will be quite able to look after himself when his turn comes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Deal with the whole of
it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I will continue the quotation from the point where I was interrupted:
Having regard for what is going on to-day in China, having regard to the deliberate concerted effort that is being made to destroy the British Empire, openly vaunted by a certain class of people in the world who are teaching sedition in the worst form and endeavouring in every way possible to bring about the destruction of the empire, this statute should remain just where it is in order that if the occasion necessitates we may use it, and use it effectively.
The same statute that in his opinion was valueless the year before. Then at page 2104
he says:
Deportation is not punishment.
Well, I should like to know what could be more drastic punishment than the deportation of a British subject born outside of Canada who has lived here for twenty years, whose roots have been torn up from the soil of Great Britain and planted here. Yet the hon. gentleman says that deportation in such a case is not punishment.
The criminal law is in operation for the punishment of the offender, and for deterring others; it is to punish those who violate our laws. But deportation is to send out of our country undesirable citizens, and when this house votes to repeal a section such as that, indirectly it says that it is satisfied that that class of person is not an undesirable person. To retain the section cannot do harm; it may do good. It cannot interefere with liberty, because it does not deal with British subjects.
In fairness to the hon. member I may say that I think he read the section with which we are now dealing a little too rapidly, for he stated several times that section 41 as it now stands did not apply to British subjects. I also wish to say that he corrected that statement later on in the course of the debate. I quote from Hansard at page 2110 of April 8, 1927:
Mr. Bennett: Rising to a question of privilege, I have to thank my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) for

Immigration Act
having drawn my attention to the fact that I used the words "British subject" erroneously.
I was speaking very rapidly.-


Mr. HEAPS:: That is liow he spoke on Friday night.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -I was speaking very rapidly and should have employed the expression "Canadian citizen" instead of which I erroneously used the term "British citizen or subject" and did so quite frequently.
Mr. Forke: You used the term "British subject" several times.
Mr. Bennett: I know I did, hut I did so erroneously, and I now desire to make a correction.
Perhaps a certain latitude ought to be allowed to private members of the opposition This year, however, the hon. member for West Calgary occupies an important position as the head of a great party. Perhaps in view of the statements made by him in 1926 that the section was valueless, and in 1927 that it was most important that it should be retained, he will communicate to this house his present views on this subject now that he is the leader of the Conservative party.
In support of my contention that the legislation is not only discriminatory against British subjects born outside of Canada, but is also of no value having regard to the existing law, I repeat that section 3 of the Immigration Act is very wide in its extent. Section 40 is wide in its extent and the provisions of the criminal law with regard to sedition are generously very broad indeed. Section 132 of the criminal code has been frequently referred to in the course of the discussion on this subject:
Seditious words are words expressive of a seditious intention.
(2)	A seditious libel is a libel expressive of a seditious intention,
(3)	A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry into execution a seditious intention.
Then 134 provides for the punishment of sedition. But the expression "seditious intention" is nowhere defined in the criminal code, and therefore we have to go back to the English common law, which is the law of this country except in so far as it has been changed by statute. As I say, the definition of seditious intention appears nowhere in the criminal code. When it was intended in England to draft a code of English criminal law section 102 was drawn up, but it never became law. It did, however, contain a clause defining seditious intention. I cite now Crank-shaw's Criminal Code at page 142:
A seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom or of any part of it as by law established,
or either house of parliament, or the administration of justice; or to excite Her Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, otherwise than by law-ful means, the alteration of any matter-
Any matter.
-in church or state by law established; or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty's subjects; or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects.
Anyone who has made a special study of'the subject of sedition, as it was my unfortunate duty to do upon one occasion, will know the wide extent of that definition of seditious intention. That definition drafted by the English commissioners never became law, but it was admitted to be a very fair presentation of the common law affecting seditious intention.
I therefore make the statement in conclusion that this section as it stands now is unjust in that it discriminates unfairly against British subjects born outside Canada. It is also unnecessary in view of the legislation already existing. I therefore appeal to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to assist in the repeal of this iniquitous law. It is a monstrosity that bears the obvious signs of its hysterical birth. There ought not to be in this country any legislation that effects or makes possible discrimination of this sort. Canadian citizenship ought to mean the same for all Canadian citizens. Canadian citizenship is something that ought to be valued, and we ought to place all persons who are British subjects on the same footing, whether they are British subjects born in Canada or British subjects born outside Canada, whether they are British subjects by virtue of birth or by naturalization. When we hand ian alien a certificate of naturalization we say to him, "You have served five years of probation in this country and we deem you a fit person to enjoy the rights and privileges of British citizenship now conferred upon you". Let us place all British subjects in this country upon an equality. We cannot do so without repealing this section. I therefore again appeal to the leader of the opposition to assist the house in bringing about that repeal. He now occupies an important position and irresponsible utterances do not come well from him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend (Mr. Thorson) has quoted at some length from previous discussions. I am not going to go into great detail, but I must say that he was most unhappy in his last attempt to castigate my hon. friend and leader (Mr. Bennett) for inconsistency. The least he could have done, in honouring the house with his address, was to have quoted correctly from the records of the house.
Immigration Act


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: To what does my hon.
friend refer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. leader in 1926,
instead of intimating, as suggested, that this legislation was not needed and was useless, clearly pointed out in a discussion, carried on largely between himself and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that this section 41, went further than part II of the criminal code to which reference has been made. I will not read at any great length, but there are one or two quotations which I desire to make in order to clear the matter up. I am quoting from Hansard of 1926, page 4114:
Mr. Bennett:

Directing his observation to the Minister of Justice.
[DOT]-If my hon. friend will analyse the provisions of part II of the code, in the light of the provisions in section 41, he will have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that there are, in that section, offences whch are not contained in part II of the criminal code.
Later on he had this to say:
This is not the day to relax the arm of the law; this is not the day to lessen the authority of our officials to bring to account men who are deliberately endeavouring to destroy our institutions,
And so forth.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I ask a question?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a moment; let me
conclude the quotation:
At the moment I am concerned with men who are circulating seditious literature and who are carrying on an active propaganda against organized government in the provinces and in this Dominion, and my regret is that in part II of tile code there is no section that meets the cases mentioned in section 41.
In other words, my leader was discussing with the Minister of Justice the inadequacy of part II of the code in dealing with the very points that were dealt with in section 41. And that has been our point all through in regard to this legislation. The hon. member says that this legislation was railroaded through the house in 1919. Again he quoted one or two portions of Hansard, which I have in my hand, to give to the house a fair presentation of the facts. What are the facts? During the session of 1919 the house passed an amendment to the Immigration Act. I have not the details before me-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I gave them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, you did not mention them.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I gave all the dates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give the dates the hon. member gave and deal with them differ-
ently. The act was passed through the house and accepted apparently by both houses. And by the way, this went concurrently with the amendment to the code which took from May first to July seventh before it finally passed. It was in a sense concurrent legislation. In June of that year, however, it was found by the officers of the crown that the amendment passed was not sufficient to cover the case as indicated in the criminal code. On June 6, therefore, Mr. Calder, then Minister of Immigration, came before the house with a bill to amend the act already passed at that session. Mr. Calder said:
In the bill which was before this house amending the Immigration Act certain persons who advocated the overthrow of government, the destruction of property, and so on, by violence were in the prohibited classes. The matter has been inquired into further and the law officers of the crown have advised that the section as it stands does not really cover all that was intended.
Then Mr. D. D. McKenzie, leader of the opposition, said:
I have no desire to obstruct the minister but would he say in what form this legislation comes before the house?
The hon. gentleman discreetly avoided an answer, and Sir Robert Borden, who was Prime Minister at the time, said:
It can only be done by the unanimous consent of the house.
To that statement Mr. McKenzie replied:
I did not hear the minister ask the unanimous consent of the house.
Then Mr. Calder moved for leave to introduce the bill; he moved first reading, second reading and third reading and it was passed by the house and sent to the senate. Each of these moves had to be and was made with unanimous consent after Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister, intimated to the house that unanimous consent was required.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Was the bill
printed and in the hands of the members at the time?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know; my hon. friend can assume that it was not, but it does not alter the fact that unanimous consent was given. That bill was passed to amend a piece of legislation which had been previously considered together with another piece of legislation which took two months and one week to consider, and it was read three times with unanimous consent during that sitting of the house, after some considerable discussion. Had one member of the house objected, the whole business wolud have stoped; the bill could not have moved at all. My hon. friend says it took only fifteen minutes; that may be so, but there was considerable discussion. This

Immigration Act
bill repealed a section which was previously passed during that session, and I think that fairly disposes of any suggestion that this legislation was railroaded either in the amendment to the Immigration Act or the amendment to the criminal code, as we pointed out very clearly on Friday night.
Now let us come to the point. I happen to belong to that benighted class of persons born in England. Some gentlemen who were not born in England seem to be intensely solicitous for some of us who were born there. I was born in England, and I am mighty proud of it. I came to this country forty-one years ago, and I am going to have something to say to the minister about how he treats those people who were born in England and who have lived a number of years in this country, when they go to the motherland for a visit, and try to return to Canada. Now I want the house to remember that we are not dealing with law-abiding citizens, persons seeking to make an honest living here and who have a right to claim a square deal from the people of Canada. We are dealing with those who, by word or act in Canada, seek to overthrow by force or violence the government or the constituted law and authority of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, of Canada, and so forth. We are not interfering in any way with the law-abiding citizens of this country.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Who is to decide whether or not the charges against these people are true? That is the very point; they are not to receive trial by jury. Surely the hon. gentleman will admit that even such a man accused of breaking the law should have the right to trial by jury.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There comes a time-and few people know it better than does my hon. friend-when by virtue of insurrection, rebellion, violence and seizing control of the machinery of government in a locality or in a country as a whole, or attempting to do so, the ordinary functions of the administration of law cannot be applied. For instance, if the offences cited here are dealt with months later there may be an opportunity for the normal functioning of the processes of law, but when a group of men seek by violence to overthrow the constituted authority, under this section the government of the day have the right to deport such persons.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When they are only charged with the offence?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be, but you
have at least this much trial; their cases are reviewed by the officers of the government, and that is at least a measure of trial.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Why not apply it to
Russia as well as to Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now I am going to turn
to the attitude adopted by the minister toward law-abiding citizens of the present day. There is no trial by jury; it is done according to the whims of himself and his officers. I have been referring to a very extreme case, that of persons seeking to overthrow the government by force. It is all very well for my hon. friend to suggest that such persons should have the advantage of all the intricacies of legal procedure, but we know from experience in this country-although fortunately we have had few experiences-and we know from the history of other countries that to deal with such people requires somewhat drastic measures. As far as Canada is concerned, the test of this is the fact that it has not been used; there has been no need to use it at all, but its presence on our statutes is an excellent deterrent.
Now take one of these persons bom in England who comes to Canada and lives here for say forty-one years, as I have done. That person goes back to England for a visit and remains only a few weeks, not a year as the minister stated previously. Then he comes to the ticket office of the Canadian National Railways, or some other transportation company, and is told that he must fill out this form in order to get back to his family, his business and the country where he has lived for so many years. This form is not issued under the statute, and is not something with which parliament can deal; it is an arbitrary form issued by the minister under his authority, and his officers are instructed that a person who refuses to fill out this form or to comply with its provisions shall not be admitted to Canada. In all there are twenty-six questions; some of them I will not read. There are questions covering the name, age, place of birth, nationality and so on. Then one is asked, "Have you ever been refused admission to or deported from Canada? Do you intend to reside permanently in Canada? Can you read? What language? By whom was passage paid? Religion." It is not enough to say you are a Protestant; you must state whether you are Wesleyan, Church of England, Roman Catholic, and so on. "What trade or occupation did you follow in your own country? What occupation do you intend to follow in Canada? If destined to relative, friend or employer, state which and give full name and address. If not joining any person, give address in Canada to which you are going. Give full name, relationship and full address of your nearest relative in the country from which you came?"
Immigration Act

I happen to have, I suppose, thirty or forty relatives over there and I could not for the life of me tell you which is my nearest relative ; I have a few cousins, aunts, and so forth. " If your wife and children are to follow you, give names and ages." And then it goes on, " Have you or your family ever been mentally defective, physically defective, or tubercular?" And then, " If in possession of passport, give place of issue and the date " and so on. And then the last question, " What money in possession of passenger?"-how much money you have in your pocket. That was a list of questions which was presented to me and which I had to fill out before I could buy a ticket to return to Canada.


Mr. FORKE:: You did not make a statement that you were a returning Canadian, when asked those questions?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I certainly did. I said, I have been forty-one years in Canada and I have been a member of parliament for many years, and why have I to fill out these questions? And he said, I am sorry, sir, but you have to fill out the questions.


Robert Forke: Then the officer did not do his duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He was a Canadian officer. I had to fill them out.


Robert Forke: You would be glad to fill them out.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not only did I have to fill them out for myself, but for my wife and my son, who left England three weeks before I did, as I was detained; I had to fill them out before I could get a ticket for her. She has been in Canada longer than I have, ever since she was a year and a half old.


Edward James Young: What is the objection to filling it out?


Henry Herbert Stevens: After I had answered these questions, I wrote across the top of it that I considered these questions ludicrous and absurd.


Robert Forke: I will make the statement here that the only requirement for an Englishman to come here is good health.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the case.


Mr. RINFRET:: That is the case.


Charles Avery Dunning: We should have order. I am rising to a point of order.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil):: The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has the floor and cannot be interrupted.


Charles Avery Dunning: On a point of order. My point of order is not against the member but
[Mr. StevensJ
to the whole discussion. The bill relates to a certain, specific matter of deportation; I do not think it is sufficiently broad to permit a general discussion upon immigration and the conditions surrounding it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Upon the point of order, if you intend to rule on it, we are dealing with the repeal of a section of the Immigration Act which calls for the deportation of certain persons, to the character of whom I have referred. I now bring in this as an illustration of the inconsistency of the position, that while some are proposing the repeal of an act which deals with criminals and insurrectionists and seditionists, under the regulations of the act bona fide citizens of Canada are forced to answer questions and meet with obstacles to re-enter Canada which are absurd; and I am going to carry it a step further and say this, that the presentation of this form and others which I have not under my hand-there are four or five of them-together w'ith the necessity for photographs being taken-it did not go to the length of finger prints, but at all events photographs had to be attached, plus an examination by a a strange doctor in a fixed place-is doing more to interfere with Britsh immigration to Canada than does any other thing, and certainly more than the presence of section 41 in the Immigration Act. That is the gravamen of my argument, and I desire just to complete it. If the chairman is going to rule upon my discussion of this question-


Charles Marcil: The rules of the house are well known, but here is what subsection 2 of standing order 58 says:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Of course an illustration is allowed, but it must always be remembered that the question of relevancy applies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I entirely agree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman. The point I am endeavouring to make is particularly in response to the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) and it is this. When some hon. gentlemen exercise themselves to a point of impassioned appeal in defence of Englishmen, if you like, who seek to overthrow by force or violence the law and constituted authority of this country-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I protest against that,
Mr. Chairman.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Excuse me, my hon. friend is not going to make an argument; he may make a statement if he likes.

Immigration Act


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I rise to a point of order.
I ask the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw that statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not a point of
order. I know my rights in this house.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the hon. member for
Winnipeg South Centre says that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is attributing to him statements which he did not make, he has a right so to state.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member for
Vancouver Centre has attributed to me words which I never uttered. The hon. member says that I am solicitous for Englishmen who have committed certain offences. I made no such statement. I made-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is all Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is not entitled to make a speech.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I stated first of all that
the bill was discriminatory.


Charles Marcil: In Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 103, paragraph 313, it is pointed out that the rule is that a statement by an hon. member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted. The statement of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre must be accepted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My point is this-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I ask that the hon.
member withdraw his statement that there was approval by me of Englishmen who have committed offences. I expressed' no such approval.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The chariman is quite
able, I am sure, to keep me in order, and he knows me quite long enough-


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
say that he did not make this statement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I made no such statement.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Will the chairman say
whether I did or did not make such a statement?


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for
Vancouver Centre having made a statement, and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre having made a statement, both statements must be accepted. The debate will proceed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me try and make this as impersonal as I can.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: You may make it worse.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I am going to make it as nearly as I can according to the facts. We have on the statute book a certain law providing that persons who seek to overthrow by force or violence the government and statute law and authority of this country may be deported. I said that this applied to Englishmen,-I used that word because I happen to be an Englishman. It applies to Englishmen who are now resident in Canada.
I said this:	There are some who are apparently solicitous for those who are guilty of this offence and they are seeking to repeal this law so that no disability in regard to deportation under the act shall rest upon such persons.


Ernest Lapointe: They will be subject
to deportation if they are convicted of a criminal offence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am talking about treatment under this act-


Charles Avery Dunning: Treatment is a good
word.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -and I say that the same government which is supporting the repeal of this legislation allows its Minister of Immigration to issue regulations placing impediments and obstacles in the way of British immigrants coming into Canada and, furthermore, obstacles which are little less than offensive and insulting to an Englishman who visits the old country and who seeks to return to Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it not better to
keep out a criminal Englishman than to have to deport him afterwards?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I suppose my hon. friend thinks that is clever.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am answering the hon. member's own question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The law provides for keeping out criminals, but if a man enters this country and later develops his criminality, he is liable to deportation under section 41.


Ernest Lapointe: If he is convicted
properly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: oldest being twenty-one and the youngest eleven, a daughter and his wife. He wanted to start every one of them up on a farm in Canada. This is not an Englishman who knew nothing about farming; he, his father and his grandfather were farmers; he had approximately $25,000 in cash and he wanted to come to Canada. I am taking this case from the officers df the Department of Immigration. What was he faced with? First he was shown the document which I hold in my hand and which he had to sign. Then he was told that he must go to a certain place on a certain date and subject himself, his sons, his daughter and his wife to a medical examination by an absolutely strange doctor. He asked if they would accept the certificate of his family doctor, but, no, they would not accept it. In this case it happened that the immigration office was in a public-house. There are twelve places where they are in publichouses.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I rise to a point of order. I think the hon. member is absolutely out of order.
Mr. bTEVENS:	The farmer took the
stand that it was not a reasonable thing to request of him. In addition to that, he had to submit-


John Gordon Ross: Mr. Chairman,
I submit the hon. member is out of order.


Charles Marcil: We are discussing the question of immigration.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, we are not.


Charles Marcil: We are discussing the question of deportation of immigrants. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre knows of course that the rule of relevancy applies. By way of relevancy he may refer to other cases dealing with immigration.


Charles Avery Dunning: I submit, on the point of order, there is a proper place for the house to discuss this matter and that is on the estimates of the Department of Immigration I for one should be delighted to discuss the matter there, but I do not think it is fair nor within the rules of the house to have attention diverted from the specific and only point which is contained within this legislation and which has to do solely with the deportation of British subjects born outside of Can-we can on that one point discuss the whole subject of immigration, then there is no use in anyone rising to a point of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking to the point of order, I think it is quite clear from what was said by the minister himself the other 
evening, that the question of deportation involves the question of immigration. You have to get your citizen into the country before you can deport him. In dealing with the right of deportation we are dealing with the right to send out of the country those whom the country has brought in. The hon. member is discussing circumstances under which some people who are brought in, are subsequently taken out.


Charles A. Stewart: I want tc raise a point of order from another angle. This matter is now before a select standing committee of the house and we would be glad to hear the hon. member before that committee.


Ernest Lapointe: I was going to submit the very point of order which the Minister of the Interior has just mentioned. The whole subject of immigration has been referred to a committee of this house, and it should not be discussed here while the bill is before [DOT] the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why was this bill not referred?


Ernest Lapointe: This is another matter altogether. It is to repeal a statute specifically concerning deportation, and the discussion should be restricted to that statute.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will restrict myself to it. If the house is, as I said a moment ago, going to be solicitous for the welfare or the wishes or desires of those who seek to overthrow by force or violence the government, to come into this country-


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has no right to say that. I am not any more solicitous for those who commit such acts than my hon. friend is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then why repeal the section?


Ernest Lapointe: I want to give everybody in this country the right of a trial for any alleged offence.


Charles Marcil: The point of order must be settled. The rule of relevancy applies and I am somewhat of the opinion expressed by the Minister of the Interior that, as the matter of immigration has been referred to a committee which will have to report back to the house, an opportunity will then be given to the house to discuss the whole question of immigration.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have finished with that portion of my remarks.


Charles Marcil: I hope the hon. member will limit himself to what is now before the committee.

Immigration Act


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: This bill ought to go before the select standing committee also.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My illustration, although somewhat interrupted and disjointed, has at least borne in upon the minds of hon. members' the necessity for some consideration of the matter. The Minister of Justice interjected a moment ago that his point was that no one should be deported except after trial before the courts of the country. Why, there are dozens and dozens of cases, including the McConachie baby case, deported on what authority?


Ernest Lapointe: I am referring to people
who are charged with crimes, not to cases like the McConachie one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am referring to people
charged with crimes. The other day there was a case in Vancouver where it was said that a man was charged with a crime. I know nothing about the man; he may have been good or bad; but he was carrying on some profession there which was perfectly honest. Someone said that about eight or ten years ago he had been charged with some crime in the United States, although he had never been convicted, and he was picked up by the immigration authorities for deportation. There was no charge that he had committed any offence in Canada, nor that he had uttered sedition nor sought to overthrow the government of this country. There was simply a statement that he had been charged with a crime in some other country, and he was picked up by the immigration authorities.


Robert Forke: Because he had never landed in Canada. He was not here legally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister said:	He
had never landed in Canada. He was in Vanvouver.


Robert Forke: I said legally. He had not entered Canada legally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Here we have an illustration of the minister's lack of knowledge of the law. I am not blaming him because I am not a lawyer and neither is he. His position, however, is rather weak. Why did the man enter Canada illegally? What was the illegality of his presence in Canada? Because he was supposed, according to another person's statement-and no trial was held- to have been charged with an illegal act in the United States.


Charles A. Stewart: The minister did not say anything of the kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am saying that.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is making a statement that is entirely apart from the fact.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister know
the case I am talking about?


Charles A. Stewart: The minister said that the man landed in Canada illegally, and for that reason he may be deported.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister decides that this individual was in Canada illegally.


Robert Forke: I do not know the case, but if my hon. friend will allow me to make a statement-	[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says he does not know the case, but he is going to explain it.


Robert Forke: If he was over here illegally-


Henry Herbert Stevens: To whom is the minister
referring?


Robert Forke: -he probably slipped over the border, the same as some Canadians do going the other way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister know
whom he is talking about?


Robert Forke: No, but I know-


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says he does not know whom he is talking about.


Robert Forke: I know that he would not be deported if he were here legally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the minister will please take his seat, I will go on.


John Frederick Johnston: These interruptions are taking up the time of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. He has the floor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says he does not know the case, and yet he says the man was illegally in Canada. I am telling the house the facts of the case. Here was a man from the United States who came to Canada and was carrying on here a perfectly legitimate business. An individual informed the immigration authorities that this man had been charged with-he was not convicted-an offence in the United States, and the minister's officers come along and pick him up and take him down to the detention sheds for deportation without a trial.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is now going beyond the facts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I am not.


Charles A. Stewart: He would
not be deported without a trial.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The answer to the minister is the answer that the poor fellow gave when
he was in gaol. They told him, "They cannot put you in gaol for this," and he said, "Why the answer is, I am in gaol now."

Immigration Act


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend well knows that he would not be sent out of the country without being given a trial.


Charles Avery Dunning: Was he deported?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As far as I know, yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: As far as you know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think under this forty
minute rule, Mr. Chairman, one should at least be permitted to state his case. My point is this, that under the Immigration Act we have a score of different reasons why a man may be deported. He can be deported for various things-an offence in another country-and I know many of them who have been picked up-


Charles Avery Dunning: Can we have the name of the individual who, my hon. friend says, was deported under the circumstances which he has just related?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Immigration knows the case; ask him.


Charles Avery Dunning: Let us have the name.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Immigration says he knows the case; ask him. If he says that what I state is wrong-


Charles Avery Dunning: Give us the name.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Another thing is this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are the very one who said names should not be mentioned the other day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend give the name to the minister privately, if the man would be injured by giving it publicly?


Robert Forke: Does not the hon. member think it is only decent, when he makes a charge, to give me the name, so that I can have a report made on the case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am making no charge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that interruptions of this kind are not conducive to orderly debate. One should at least have the opportunity to present his case without ribald " oh, ohs," from that section of the house. My argument is that in the repeal of this legislation we are dealing with perhaps one of the most difficult phases of administration that it is possible for us to consider. We have had one experience in Canada, the only one, I think, in the last forty or fifty years, where certain groups of

individuals sought by violence to secure control of constituted authority in this country. Canada prides itself, and very properly so, upon its system of government and upon its constitution, and yet the constituted authorities upon that occasion found it impossible to deal with the situation which arose, and so this legislation was passed, not ill-advisedly, not railroaded through the house, but the corollary to this amendment took two months and a week to get through in the session before this particular amendment was made, and later on this amendment was introduced into the house and unanimously accepted by the house without a protesting voice. Since that date not a single complaint regarding the application of this law has been made. Only a political cry has been set up by certain individuals, to gain a little political advantage, for the repeal of this section, and two years ago, when a bargain was made between the Prime Minister and the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre, who at that time was sitting on the other side of the house-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask that the hon. member retract that statement. It is absolutely untrue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A letter passed between the Prime Minister and the hon. gentleman-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask that that
statement be retracted, Mr. Chairman. I repeat it is absolutely untrue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. gentleman
says that there was no bargain or understanding with the Prime Minister, I am quite willing to accept his word, as he is entitled to have done, speaking from his place in the house, but I was referring to a letter which was written by the Prime Minister to the hon. gentleman, and which was read by the hon. gentleman himself into the record.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What did the letter
say?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not got it under my hand, but my hon. friend will not deny reading that letter to the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I read it, I will not deny it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You received it and read it into the record.


Ernest Lapointe: There was no bargain in that letter.


John Frederick Johnston: The forty minutes is up but in view of the interruptions, perhaps the hon. gentleman should be allowed more time.

Immigration Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not get through my argument, but I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Avery Dunning: As another individual
who is affected by this law in the same manner as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who has just spoken, I desire to say a few words along the same lines that I followed on a former occasion.
While my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre is, like myself an Englishman resident many years in this country, and like myself, subject to the provisions of this law, his view of it is different from mine, just in the same manner as his political principles differ from mine. His view is essentially the Tory view of this class of legislation, and mine, I hope, is essentially the Liberal view.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Avery Dunning: Broadly the question resolves itself into one of the most fundamental questions of government:	Shall a man who
is charged with a crime be given a trial or not? Shall Canadian citizens stand equal before the law? That is the question, and I submit that those of us who come from the old land have exactly, or should have exactly the same rights before the law of this country as those who come from other lands, and it is on that particular ground of principle that I am against any legislation of this sort. Perhaps I can best illustrate my point by making a comparison from within the walls of this house.
I have a very high respect for my hon. friend the member for Vegreville (Mr. Luch-kovich). He comes from another land. He comes of a different race from mine, a different race from that of almost all of us. He is to-day a Canadian citizen by naturalization. I am a British subject, bom in England, and resident in Canada. I believed that we were both Canadian citizens with equal rights before the law, but this legislation does not treat us equally. Let me follow my illustration further. The hon. member for Vegreville and I, having common principles, as we have on many matters, go out and address a public meeting. Some individual at that meeting has the idea that we are advocating the overthrow of government by force and violence, and a charge is laid against both of us. What is the treatment accorded under this law? Under this law as it now stands, an immigration inspector puts his hand on my shoulder and kicks me out of the country without a trial, but my hon. friend from Vegreville, charged with the very same offence, must be charged under
the criminal code and receive a fair trial. I am asking for the British-born subject the same treatment-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And the hon. member
for Vegreville could not be deported if found guilty.


Charles Avery Dunning: No. He must be punished in this country, because there is no place to deport him to. He has lost his previous nationality in accepting Canadian nationality. But I may be torn away from my family and my possessions in this country and sent back home at the whim of a bureaucrat-an immigration inspector. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre actually defends that procedure and accuses us who seek to wipe it out of championing the cause of those who would upset government in this country by violence. No, Mr. Chairman, the principle is far more vital than that. The principle gets down to the very roots of our freedom, as to whether men who are charged with crime shall be equal before the law, shall all be treated before the same courts in the same way, or whether there shall be an arbitrary authority set up, no matter what it is, that can say to one man: "You get out of the country; leave your family and your possessions behind you; you are guilty;" and to the other man: "You go before the court and we will prove whether you are innocent or guilty." It is on the matter of principle that I stand in connection with this law.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Is it not the fact that previous to this law you could not deport a Britisher who talked sedition, while you could deport a Frenchman, an Italian or any alien; and that what this law did was to put them on an equality, not an inequality?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. it is not a fact as relating to British subjects.


Peter McGibbon: I beg your pardon, I think you will find it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: Until this law was passed a British subject born in England was treated the same way in this country with respect to this class of offences as any other British subject. With respect to aliens, they could always be deported, but even then only after conviction for an offence. I am in the judgment of the lawyers of the house in saying that this is the only case where a man charged with a criminal offence in this country can be deported without trial. I should like any lawyer in this house to name another circumstance under which any man charged with crime in Canada can be deported without trial, be he a British subject or an alien.

Immigration Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely you know better than that.


Charles Avery Dunning: There may be other
classes of offences for which people may be deported; for instance, if they got into the country illegally in the first place, or are medically unfit. I am not discussing such cases. Personally I know of no case at all similar to this one. Even so, I prefer to limit my claim to those who are British subjects and simply to plead for equal treatment, no matter where they may happen to have been born. After all. is it so creditable to have been born in this country? I am inclined to think there is more merit in having had the courage to leave one's native country and come here than there is in the mere accident of birth in this country. Why should we treat differently before the law British subjects, whether born in Canada, in England or elsewhere in the British Empire? We are not defending those who commit offences. But my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre asks us to adopt the principle that a man is to be presumed guilty without trial-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No such thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: -on the determination of a bureaucratic official. British law presumes that men are innocent until they are proven guilty, and all I ask for British people in this country is that they be given a chance before a jury of their peers to defend themselves, that they are proven criminal in the regular courts before they are turned out of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know whether to be more appalled at the absolute lack of knowledge of the minister who has just taken his seat (Mr. Dunning) or with his effrontery in making statements such as he has made.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I ask for the withdrawal of that word.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. March):: I think the word "effrontery" might be modified.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I will say "courage".


Charles Avery Dunning: I will admit that my hon. friend is an excellent judge of effrontery.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman transgresses the rule that he has invoked. This is his idea of parliamentary procedure. I suppose he is subject to exactly the same observation which you made in respect of myself, Mr. Chairman. Will you be good enough to make it?


Charles Marcil: The same rule applies.
fMr. Dunning.]


Charles Avery Dunning: If it is unparliamentary to say that my hon. friend is an excellent judge of effrontery, I have pleasure in withdrawing the expression, and would say that he is an excellent judge of courage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now that the minister has admitted that I am an excellent judge of that courage which he has just displayed, may I venture to direct the attention of the committee to the fact that ever since we have had an immigration law it has contained a provision whereby immigrants who are guilty of criminal offences may be deported without trial? I wonder if this is not known to hon. members.


Charles Avery Dunning: Proven guilty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like to see the
section. If it were so I would urge its repeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the hon.
gentleman wanted to change the whole foundation of our law. That is one of the difficulties of speaking without knowledge.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will find that out
later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us look at the Immigration Act itself. But before I read it I may make this observation. The right of every country to determine who shall be its citizens has always been admitted in international law as one of the proudest of a nation's privileges. No one has been more insistent than the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) in claiming that we are a nation, that we have the right to determine our own affairs as suits us best, and that with respect to determining who shall come within our borders and who shall go out we are the only judges, and that this question should be determined according to the exigencies of the moment and the necessities of the case.


Charles Avery Dunning: By this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This parliament should
determine. Now, let me quote the Immigration Act itself. Hon. members will find that section 3 specifies the classes of persons that are prohibited from entering Canada. Then I turn to section 40, a section that has been much discussed in this house during the debates that have taken place in connection with the repeal of section 41. Section 40, chapter 93 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, reads as follows:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen or person having Canadian domicile, shall be found an inmate of or connected with

Immigration Act
the management of a house of prostitution or practising prostitution, or who shall receive, share in, or derive benefit from any part of the earnings of any prostitute or who manages or is employed by, in, or in connection with any house of prostitution or music or dance hall or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes, or where prostitutes gather, or who in any way assists any prostitute or protects or promises to protect from arrest any prostitute or who shall import or attempt to import any person for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose, or who has been convicted-
"Or," mark you, not "and."
-or who has been convicted of a criminal offence in Canada or wdio admits the commission prior to landing or entry to Canada, of a crime involving moral turpitude, or who has become a professional beggar or a public charge or practices polygamy, or has become an inmate of a penitentiary, gaol, reformatory, prison, asylum or hospital for the insane or the mentally deficient, or an inmate of a public charitable institution, or enters or remains in Canada contrary to any provision of this act, it shall be the duty of any officer cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the minister, giving full particulars.
There is the position with respect to that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Am I not domiciled in
Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I will read you
what domiciled is in a moment. I want to leave the word domicile alone for the time being and to show that parliament found it desirable to confer large powers on the immigration authorities to deport certain prohibited and undesirable classes of persons, regardless of whether or not they were convicted of offences, for the reasons mentioned by the minister in the early part of the session, and which the then Minister of the Interior referred to in 1926. This parliament has always claimed the right to place in the hands of its officials certain powers with respect to removing from the country those classes of people that were regarded as undesirable.


Robert Forke: Immigrants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Robert Forke: The clause you read deals
especially with immigrants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us take the minister's interpretation-immigrants whom we turn out of the country. The Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay) the other day read the prohibited classes and I will not take the time now to give them again. Suppose anyone in that class came to the country: what would
56103-159i
happen? Is there any trial? Was there a trial in the case of the McConachie child?


Robert Forke: The cases are not parallel
at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point which I am
making the minister has not yet appreciated. It is this: Under the provisions of the statute powers are given to the officials of the department to deport from this country men and women who, though they have not been convicted of any crime, are found to be within the prohibited or undesirable classes.


Robert Forke: But who are not Canadians.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The authorities themselves have the right to order such deportation. The question whether or not they are Canadians does not arise.


Robert Forke: Yes, it does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My point is that parliament has claimed the right to determine who shall come within the borders of Canada, and under what conditions people shall be deported. And that power is not limited to the deportation of persons convicted of any crime. The prohibited classes, as mentioned in the section, were given the other day by the Minister of Health. Section 3 gives one class and section 40 the other; and one of the classes embraces those who have been convicted of any crime. WTith respect to them the crime need not necessarily have been committed in Canada; if any such person has: been convicted of a crime in any other country we may exclude him from this Dominion.. That is the provision of the law. In the-United States and in other countries as well,, to whose shores people are invited, it has-been deemed wise-and it is not an unreasonable thing-to vest in certain officials the-power to send out of the country certain undesirable persons who have come in. I would remind the minister and this committee that 95 per cent of all deportations that have taken place in Canada have been deportations made at the whim of Canadian officials. I say whim; let us call it a judicial whim, if you like. But the fact is that these deportations have been made by the officials of this country without regard at all to the courts of the land.


Charles Avery Dunning: But not in connection
with matters that could come before the courts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every one of those to
whom I have reference comes within the class of persons committing what are offences under the code.
Immigration Act


Charles Avery Dunning: Being in an insane asylum or a charitable institution is not an offence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. But inmates of
the other institutions are all persons who have committed criminal offences. And what is more, the prohibited class involves criminal cases. In other words, this parliament has claimed from time immemorial, and properly so, the right to exclude from Canada men and women who, in the opinion of the public of this country, ought not to be here; and the officials of the department-not the minister himself, except in so far as he signs his name to the deportation order-have determined the question without reference to the courts of Canada.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend's argument is perfectly sound so long as he is dealing with immigrants. There is no mistake that these powers are given in these cases. But section 41 deals with people like the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) and myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure-


Robert Forke: The hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Luchkovich), for example-this is merely by way of illustration-may commit any crime under the sun and he will be tried and punished under the laws of Canada. No immigration official can deport him. He has passed out of the immigrant class and is now in the Canadian citizen class. But the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) and I have never ceased to be of that class so far as section 41 is concerned, and that is where the injustice and: the wrong exist. All these laws are for the protection of the country against undesirable immigrants, and the officials can stop them at the border and turn them back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to say again that the minister and I are at one; there is no confusion of thought with respect to the matter. I was dealing with immigrants, and so was he. I was pointing out that this country had always retained the power, in its officials, to deport without recourse to the courts or trial by jury; and I made the statement that 95 per cent of all cases that have ever been dealt with in this country have been deportations made by the officials without convictions in the courts of Canada. I wish to impress that point upon the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like my hon.
friend to advance some proof regarding that 95 per cent. The statement is a sweeping one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is that in the records of the department that statement appears many times and has never been denied in this house. It is shown that there are not 5

per cent of these cases in which a conviction in the courts of Canada is the basis of deportation.


Charles Avery Dunning: If you include all the medical and mental reasons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am doing; I am taking the whole list of deportations.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is to say, there may be 80 per cent that would never have committed any offences for which they could have been brought to court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement I am making is that, of all deportations from Canada, not 5 per cent, so far as I can gather from the records that have been drawn to my attention, were based on convictions in the courts of this country.


Charles Avery Dunning: That might be true, because the reason for deportation might have nothing at all to do with any offence.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The leader of the opposition has stated the powers of parliament in this matter. May I ask whether these powers do not continue beyond the time during which you might call a person, strictly speaking, an immigrant? That power of deportation without trial lies with the department for the period of five years of residence or until the naturalization of the alien.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am coming to.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: So that the minister has the power to deport without trial so long a3 the newcomer has not acquired Canadian citizenship within the meaning of the act. Does the leader of the opposition agree with that interpretation of the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that.
Obviously there must come a time when a limitation will be imposed by parliament upon its right, or upon the right of its officials, to deport, and that limitation has been fixed in the case of aliens at naturalization. My hon. friend has referred to the period of five years. It used to be a shorter time but under the statute at present, as he knows, the limitation has been fixed at five years for the reason that within five years the immigrant may obtain naturalization. And once he has obtained naturalization you cannot deport him, for the palpable reason that he no longer has any country to which he may be deported. It therefore follows that our powers with respect to deportation are exhausted when the immigrant becomes a naturalized Canadian citizen.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Unless he loses his naturalization.

Immigration Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not discussing exceptions; he may lose his naturalization afterwards and be again subject to deportation. 1 am at the moment dealing with the broad principle that we have imposed a restriction on the exercise of our powers; that is to say, they must be exercised within five years. At the end of that period if the immigrant has become a naturalized Canadian-and it is to be assumed that he will become naturalized if he remains in the country for that length of time-these powers are no longer exercisable for the obvious reason, as I have said, that the immigrant has no country to which he can be deported, unless by his own conduct another condition has arisen to which I need not now refer. There is another point. What about the British subject who comes to * this country and is a Canadian citizen ipso facto?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: He is not a Canadian
citizen within the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is a Canadian citizen
within a year. His name goes on the voters' list and he votes; he participates in government. Why? Because we are a part of one empire. That is the reason. We have no right to say that he is not a British subject, and our constitutional powers would not enable us to say to him, "You shall leave the country", unless we place upon the law some artificial restriction with respect to his rights as a British subject. Parliament has said a very simple thing; under the test imposed by parliament in 1919 they merely said, "Was he born here or was he not?" In the one case he had to live here five years and become naturalized; then the power of parliament was gone, because the man was a naturalized Canadian and could not be deported for the simple reason that he had no other country to which he could go. The Britisher who comes to this country has the right to participate in the government of the country, with all the rights and privileges which belong to such participation, within a short time after his arrival, but he cannot become naturalized; he cannot become a Canadian citizen in the sense that an alien becomes a Canadian citizen, but there is a provision in the act in respect to domicile which was read by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson). Under that provision a Canadian citizen means a British subject who has Canadian domicile, and a Canadian domicile can only be acquired for the purposes of the Immigration Act by a person having his domicile in Canada for at least five years after having been allowed to enter the country. Clearly that does not apply to a British subject.


Robert Forke: I may be wrong, but I think it does apply to a British subject.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Does the leader of the
opposition say that that does not apply to a British subject?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not as it applies to an
alien, but for the purposes of the Immigration Act. I will read the section:
"Domicile" means the place in which a person has his home, or in which he resides, or to which he returns as his place of permanent abode, and does not mean the place where he resides for a mere special or temporary purpose;
(i) Canadian domicile can only be acquired, for the purposes of this act, by a person having his domicile for at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein within the meaning of this act:


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Does the hon. gentleman say this would not apply to a British subject?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it does, but I am
coming to the point I want to make with respect to another point brought out by my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the leader
of the opposition miud reading the classes of persons who cannot establish domicile under any circumstances?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to deal with that later, but I can do it now. Without going into the details at length, I think it is covered by this observation: The question of domicile is a matter of intention and fact, and the question of citizenship involves the law _ of nationality to this extent, that the British subject who comes into Canada is a Canadian citizen by virtue of his birth.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: After twelve months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. Now let us
go a step further. We have our immigrant here, coming to us from England; he has exercised all the rights and privileges of a Canadian after he has been here twelve months. We have brought in a foreigner who becomes naturalized at the end of five years; then he cannot be deported. How are we going to deal with that class of immigrant about which my friend the minister is so insistent? As he has said he is an immigrant; my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre is an immigrant, and now we are dealing with immigrants. The difficulty is that the house is confusing the two things. We are dealing only with immigrants, people who come from outside countries to Canada. Such a person does not cease to be an immigrant because he came from another section of the British Empire; he is as much an immigrant coming

Immigration Act
from London as a person coming from Poland. In law there is no distinction in the use of the word immigrant as between the person coming from any part of the British Empire and the person coming from outside the British Empire. Clearly both persons are immigrants and as the minister has said this section deals with immigrants and no other class of persons.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am sorry to interrupt
so often, but I would like to ask another question for the purpose of securing information. Am I correct in stating that under the law as it existed previous to the present section 41, once a stranger came to Canada and acquired Canadian citizenship within the meaning of the Immigration Act, whether he was a British subject or an alien, he was then free from deportation no matter what offence he committed and no matter whether or not he received a trial?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just going to read
the section; I think my legal friends will agree that I have fairly stated the situation to this moment. It will be remembered that in 1919 we amended the Immigration Act of 1910; that was the first amendment. What did we enact? In 1919 the statutes of 1910 were amended, and the section which was amended read as follows:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or the assassination of any official of the government of Great Britain or Canada or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or of any foreign government, or shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or Bhall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from or in any way attempts to control, any resident of Canada, by force, or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail; such person for the purposes of this act shall be considered and classed as an undesirable immigrant, and it shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any munieicpality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the minister or superintendent of immigration, giving full particulars.
As perhaps the house will remember, the statute of 1910 was amended in the early part of 1919, and if my friend from Winnipeg had directed his attention to what took place in 1926 perhaps he would not have made the observations he did make with respect to my position then. In 1926 the government of the day introduced a bill to deal with the immigration statute; they did not ask to repeal

it and leave no substitute, but they provided that it should be repealed and that the section which I have just read should be enacted in its place. I am sure the hon. gentleman does not remember that, because he was not then in the house. I hold in my hand the bills of 1926; I sent to the library for them when my friend was speaking, because I realized that I was then dealing with a bill different in terms from the bill now before the house, and different also from the bill of 1927. Bill 91 of 1926, to amend the Immigration Act, read:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. Section forty-one of the Immigration Act, chapter twenty-seven of the statutes of 1910, as enacted by chapter twenty-six of the statutes of 1919, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
41. Whenever any alien advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or assassination, or shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail; such person for the purposes of this act shall be considered and classed as an undesirable immigrant, and it shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the Minister of Immigration giving full particulars.
What was to be substituted for the section to be repealed was the act of 1910. Under the leadership of the present Prime Minister the parliament of Canada proposed to repeal section 41 of the act as we now have it and to substitute the section which was in the act in 1910, which section provides for deportation without trial by jury. That section was enacted by a Liberal government presided over by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a government which the Minister of Railways this afternoon said expressed the pure views of Liberalism. That government propose to deport these people from this country without trial by jury, without trial by jury of his peers-and the hon. gentleman thinks he has none.
I should like to direct his attention again to the sections which I have just read-my friend from Winnipeg South Centre will find them in the bills of 1926. Provision is made therein for the report to the minister with respect to any person who attempts the overthrow of government by force and violence;

Immigration Act
the overthrow by force or statute law; who makes a threat of assassination; who by word or act creates or attempts to create disorder or riot in Canada-no trial by jury-or who by common repute is suspected of belonging to any disloyal association which seeks to extort money-such person shall be classed as an undesirable immigrant and it shall be the duty of the official to report him. And that involves a duty upon the part of the minister to deport him, because it is the duty of the minister to deport every such case. Or perhaps my hon. friend means that, being associated with ministers who do not do their duty, he does not have to do this.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I draw your attention to the fact that my hon. friend is quoting from something which is not now the law?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read the statute of
1910.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The statute of 1910 did
not apply to any persons with Canadian citizenship, within the meaning of the Immigration Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend
does not expect me to say that the Minister of Railways and Canals is an alien within that act. My hon. friend has stated that I did not quote from the statute but from a bill. I quoted from a bill which was intended to be substituted-


Charles Avery Dunning: And which was not in
existence in 1926, and was not intended to be law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1926 the government
intended to restore the act of 1910. Its failure to become law was due to the dissolution of parliament.


Charles Avery Dunning: In this case it applied
not to British subjects but only to aliens. You keep putting us in the same class, as if we were aliens, and that is what I object to. I am not an alien.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In consequence of the
statement made by the Minister of Railways and Canals, I refer him to the Immigration Act enacted by the Liberal government of 1910, being chapter 27-


Charles Avery Dunning: And dealing with aliens.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And being chapter 27 of the statutes of 1910, which provides for the deportation of undesirables without trial by jury.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of aliens.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. I
said without trial by a jury of his peers. The section from chapter 27 of 1910, to which I have referred, is a reproduction of section 41 proposed in 1526. There is the section, the same section, and this is the way it reads: "Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada overthrow by force-"


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: "Other than a Canadian citizen".


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am coming to. The section which was in 1926 introduced by the acting minister was "whenever any alien advocates",-an "alien" and a "person other than a Canadian citizen" we will take to be the same thing for the purpose of this discussion. In 1919 a situation developed in Winnipeg which necessitated prompt action on the part of this parliament. And when the member for Winnipeg says the bill was railroaded through, he knows perfectly well that Sir Robert Borden pointed out that it could only be done lay the unanimous consent of the house. In 1919 neither the leader of the Liberal party nor my friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who was then in the house, rose in his place and objected to that bill being put through its several stages as indicated.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope I was not there
that afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my friend is now so
wise that he did not protest against it, perhaps it is an indication of the truth of the statement that knowledge comes but wisdom lingers.
In 1919 it became necessary to deal with a serious and difficult situation, which involved, as my friend from Winnipeg has said, many problems, the national system and national position with regard to our statue in the British Empire. There were men who were in the same class, who were all British immigrants. It gets back to this wild cry about the Britisher and the love for him which so suddenly arises. The fact is that we were dealing with immigrants and none else; we had to deal with the British immigrant as well as with the foreign immigrant, and how could we deal with him? The British immigrant was not a Canadian citizen; he came in here, and as Paul says, "I was bom a Roman citizen" so he said, when he came to Canada, he was bom a British subject; but he was an immigrant, and because he was an immigrant he stood in exactly the same position before the law as a Pole or a Hottentot.
Immigration Act


Robert Forke: You mean before this law
was passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, before the law now existing. He stands in exactly the same position here. He has come into this country as an immigrant, and one of the chances he has taken is that legislation which deals with other immigrants shall deal with him. If he places himself in the position of endeavouring to destroy constituted government and authority in this country, he still has a country back to which we can send him, the country from which he came.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The other immigrant had a chance for a trial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other immigrant had a chance for a trial unless he had become a British subject. That involves the subject with which the Prime Minister has had to deal at the British conferences. How can a person who comes to this country from other parts of the British Empire become distinctive!}' a Canadian citizen, apart from his place of birth? And because there was no provison in our law to deal with that situation, what happened? The parliament of Canada unanimously in the House of Commons passed a bill, placed this law upon the statute book of this country, by which they said that immigrants who came from the British Empire and those who came from other parts of the world and are not naturalized Canadians occupy the same position under the law. That is all.


Charles Avery Dunning: They said more than
that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is something they
did say.


Abraham Albert Heaps: After twenty minutes consideration, they did all that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can say to the hon.
gentleman, what is five minutes among gentlemen? At any rate this house put through a supply bill the other day, to take care of the salaries of the civil servants, and it did not take long. I am only pointing out that by unanimous consent of parliament legislation need not take as long as fifteen minutes; a bill may pass through three readings in this house in ten minutes or even less. And I find that the hon. the Minister of Justice was in the house that day.


Ernest Lapointe: Was I?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The records show that
he was.


Ernest Lapointe: It may be. I said that I hoped I was not. I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I find that on June 6,
amongst those who were dealing with other matters was Mr. Ernest Lapointe of Kam-Duraska, who rose on the orders of the day to make a few very delightful observations in regard to a conference which he suggested between employers and employees. Shortly after that the legislation to which I referred was taken up.


Ernest Lapointe: But I may have been
away from the chamber for twenty minutes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, we will say that
peradventure the hon. gentleman was away for fifteen minutes, and they happened to be the fifteen minutes during which this bill was engaging the attention of the house. At least that is what he hopes and what I am not able to disprove.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does my hon. friend give him no hope of conversion? That is what they want,


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
East Calgary sees how the bright light of power and office has changed the attitude of mind of the Minister of Justice in view of the letter which was written by his leader to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and to which I have had occasion more than once to refer in this house. In the hectic days of the life of the administration of which my hon. friend was so distinguished a member, his leader under date of January 28, 1926, wrote to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as follows:
Dear Mr. Woodsworth:
Replying to the letter received from Mr. Heaps and yourself, dated January 7, in which you ask whether it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with regard to: (a) provision for the unemployed; and (b) old age pensions. I would refer you, respecting provision for the unemployed, to the answer given in the House of Commons to-day by the Hon. Ernest Lapointe on behalf of the government in reply to a question by yourself-
I suppose that was not arranged?


Ernest Lapointe: What is wrong about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing in the world.
-and which indicated the government's intention of carrying out with respect to emergency relief the practice adopted in co-operation with provinces and municipalities in the years immediately following the war. In answer to a question from Mr. Neill, Mr. Lapointe further intimated that it was the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with respect to old age pensions.
You will observe that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe was in accordance with the intimation which I gave to Mr. Hpaps and

Immigration Act
yourself at the time of our interview, following the receipt of the communication herein referred to.
With respect to amendments to:	(a) the
Immigration Act; (b) the Naturalization Act; and (c) the Criminal Code, which were referred to at the time of our interview, I would say that having since taken up the proposed amendments with the ministers concerned, I feel I am in a position to assure you that legislation on those matters will also be introduced in the course of the present session.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie Kino.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with
that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a thing in the world. Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps the hon.
member would like to read the reply of his then leader to a similar letter sent by my colleague and myself to him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely. I have it before me, but it is so vastly different from the one I have just read that I think it might be well for me to read the language of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as reported at page 561 of Hansard of January 29, 1926. This is what the hon. member said:
So long as the government is prepared to bring down legislation which commends itself to our judgment we must continue to support it, and this attitude will therefore determine our action on the amendment now before the house and on the vote which must subsequently be taken.
Is that a bargain or not? That is the hon. gentleman's own statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is not that the position
of every member?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is both an acceptance and a threat. If that is not a bargain, what is?


Charles Avery Dunning: I submit that is the
position of every member in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that be so, then some hon. gentlemen will find it difficult to reconcile it with their duty to their constituents.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the hon. member should read Mr. Meighen's letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member
would prefer to have it read, I should be glad to read it, because it was the words and language of one who was not making bargains. Let me read it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before that is
read, may I again assert that there is no bargain? I ask that the expression be withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has misapprehended my point. I have read his language, not mine, and having read the letter and his statement in the house to the government I say that nothing is clearer than that that constitutes an acceptance, and the terms of the acceptance are mentioned. Whenever you have an offer and an acceptance, that constitutes a bargain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I again assert
that at the time spoken of, there was no bargain between the government and the Labour group in the house, and I aslc that the term be withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the
point of order I want to make myself abundantly clear. I read the letter of the 28th January. 1926, and now I again read these words in order that there may be no misapprehension:
So long as the government is prepared to bring down legislation which commends itself to our judgment we must continue to support it, and this attitude will therefore determine our action on the amendment now before the house and on the vote which must subsequently be taken.
That is the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre after he had read the letter written by himself and his colleague to the Prime Minister, the answer of the Prime Minister, the letter to Mr. Meighen and Mr. Meighen's answer Then he stated exactly what he was going to do. I have not read it all. This is in part what he said:
In view of the measures that have been proposed what is our position? It would seem as if this legislation merits our support; I could put it even more strongly-commands our support. We have said that we would deal with legislation as it came to us, and the government is evidently prepared to meet our views along this line. I would also like to state, much along the lines of the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), that we hold ourselves at liberty to discuss freely the legislation as it is brought down. We feel that as Independent members we must be true to our constituents and true to our highest conceptions of what is best for Canada. So long as the government-
Then follows the statement as to how they proposed to act upon the amendment which threatened the life of the administration itself. Perhaps my hon. friend would prefer the word "agreement."


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was absolutely no agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am reading only what the document says.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was absolutely no agreement. My position then was
Immigration Act

precisely what it is to-day. I read my position into Hansard; I have absolutely no reason for being ashamed of it or hiding it or altering it, and I ask that the word "bargain" or "agreement" be retracted. There was none such. I was free at any moment to determine any measure on its merits and to vote for or against the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I should have
supplemented my statement of the hon. gentleman's position with a few other observations which will show conclusively what the arrangement was. May I be permitted to read these words:
Now with regard to this debate, when the former amendment was before the house I think the position of our Labour party was fairly clearly defined.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the hon. member reading from now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The speech of the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre on the 29th January, 1926, when he read the letters:
We took the ground that the government had a perfect right to meet parliament. Further than that we thought it would be a serious mistake if the precedent would be established that the largest group, even if it were a minority, had the right to form a government. I believe the vote on the first amendment was a decided victory for minorities in this country. We stated at that time that we would wait until the legislative proposals were brought down. These are now before us and I must confess that the speech from the throne gives us little indication that the government has been preparing to give very much attention to the needs of industrial workers. I think my colleague, in his speech the other evening, stated very clearly the feeling we have in this matter. However, in the last few days the government has made certain important announcements with regard to policies directly affecting a great many people whom we represent that we feel that our position has to be decidedly modified. I think perhaps the general attitude of labour with regard to the_ speech from the throne might very well be indicated by an extract from an editorial which appears in the current number of the Congress Journal.
Then follows what I have already read, the letter of the Prime Minister and the hon. gentleman's statement that so long as such and such is done, we will do so and so, and our vote on the amendment will be determined. If the hon. member prefers the word "agreement" to the word "bargain," I am content. But according to the use of the English language an offer and an acceptance constitutes a bargain, an agreement, and in this instance we have the offer of the Prime Minister stating his proposal to enact certain legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was not an offer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was so regarded-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I again state that there was no offer made. There was a statement made as to what the government proposed to do, and we stated then what was a reasonable proposition, that if the government proposed to act in that way we would endeavour to: support the government; but there was no bargain about it, no agreement, no offer and no acceptance. It was an intimation of what the government proposed to do, and a statement on our part as to what, under the circumstances, our action would be. Again I would ask that the word "bargain" or "agreement" be withdrawn.


John Frederick Johnston: There is a well-known rule that the word of an hon. gentleman as to a matter affecting himself must be accepted, and no one knows that better than the hon. leader of the opposition. I cannot think that he is not at liberty to draw his own conclusions as to the letters which he has read, but if the statement attributed to the hon. leader of the opposition was made, I think it should be withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that I was only drawing the inference that that constituted a bargain. That is the argument I have been endeavouring to advance, that it constituted a bargain between the two.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is imputing motives.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was very careful not to.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has no right to impute motives and then try to justify them in his argument, especially motives questioning the honour of an hon. gentleman, because after all the implications of the word "bargain" are well understood.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I had said a corrupt bargain-


Mr. POULIOT:: It was a bonne entente.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be remembered that the word "bargain" standing by itself means just what I have said.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely my hon. friend did not intend to pay a compliment to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he used that word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say to the Minister of Justice that I used it in much the same sense as it was used by the hon. member for Southeast Grey in a speech she made outside of this house. She said that man's necessity is man's opportunity, and the necessity of the government at that day compelled

Immigration Act
them to accept at the hands of one or two
people just such legislation as they demanded they should have. That is the sense in which I used it, not imputing motives at all, but it was' their desire to crystallize into legislative form their beliefs as to what was best for the country. That is all, and I assure my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that I have never in my life imputed any dishonourable motives to him because I believe him to be sincere in everything he advocates. I disagree with him profoundly, but I have talked with him, and both in public and private I will bear tribute to the sincerity of his motives. But I still think he is wrong in the conclusions he draws, and in that I am sure that I am not unassociated with those who are sitting opposite to me in this house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite appreciate what the hon. gentleman has said. But it is not a question of motive; it is a question of fact. The hon. gentleman has drawn the inference that there was a bargain, and I say, with all deference to him, that his inference was wrong. I ask, therefore, that the word be withdrawn.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering Bill 187, to amend the Immigration Act. The discussion is on section 1, persons deemed to belong to prohibited classes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, as the
committee rose we were discussing a question of order raised by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Perhaps it will satisfy all the purposes I had in mind if I say there was no bargain other than that to which I referred on the records of the House of Commons. The hon. member quite appreciates that I was not casting any reflection upon him in the matter.
There is just one other point I desire to deal with-that raised by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), when he intimated that the making of a report did not signify that action would necessarily be taken. Section 42 of the Immigration Act deals with that situation:
Upon receiving a complaint from any officer, or from any clerk or secretary or other official of a municipality, whether directly or through the superintendent of Immigration, against any person alleged to belong to any prohibited or undesirable class, the minister may order such person to be taken into custody and detained at an immigrant station for examination and an
investigation of the facts alleged in the said complaint to be made by a board of inquiry or by an officer acting as such. Such board of inquiry or officer shall have the same powers and privileges, and shall follow the same procedure, as if the person against whom complaint is made were being examined before landing as provided in section 33, of this act; and similarly the person against whom complaint is made shall have the same rights and privileges as he would have if seeking to land in Canada.
2.	If upon investigation of the facts such board of inquiry or examining officer is satisfied that such person belongs to any of the prohibited or undesirable classes mentioned in sections 40 and 41 of this act, such person shall be deported forthwith, as provided for in section 33 of this act, subject, however, to such right of appeal as he may have to the minister.
3.	The governor in council may, at any time, order any such person found by a board of inquiry or examining officer to belong to any of the undesirable classes referred to in section 41 of this act to leave Canada within a specified period. Such order may be in the form D in the schedule to this act, and shall be in force as soon as it is served upon such person, or is left for him by any officer at the last known place of abode or address of such person.
There are other subsections, but I need not quote them now.


Charles Avery Dunning: That applies to aliens.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, to everybody. It
follows section 41 as it now reads. That is the point I am making. It refers in terms to all persons subject to deportation. I mention that in order that there may be no misapprehension as to the scope and authority of the section to which I refer.
There is one other fact which I think has been overlooked and which I venture to bring to the attention of my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson). Section 41, which is now sought to be repealed, contains this proviso:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject, either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalisation in Canada.
That is the proviso to which so much objection is taken. May I point out to him and other hon. members that that applies to immigrants from Australia or New Zealand or Newfoundland or India or South Africa, and to endeavour to limit the scope and operation of the section to those who come from the British Isles is manifestly wrong.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I did not so limit the
scope of the section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was just the inference
drawn by the minister speaking in relation to the matter, when my friend from Vancouver Centre was dealing with that phase of it. This section in terms applies to the seditionist whether he be from 'India, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand-in fact to any person
Immigration Act

who comes within the description of "British subject" regardless of what part of the empire he may come from. I desire to make that clear. Let me summarize this and I have concluded for the moment. First, this country claims a right to deport, for causes that may be determined by parliament, any immigrant who may come within its borders. An immigrant may come from one of two places-outside of or within the British Empire. For the purposes of this act the person who comes from without the British Empire is treated as being in exactly the same position as the person who comes from within; they stand upon parity.


Charles Avery Dunning: But not deportable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, exactly. The immigrant who comes from without the British Empire and the immigrant who comes from within stand upon a parity. I know what my hon. friend is going to say, but perhaps he will wait until he hears my next sentence. There is no power to deport a Canadian. Therefore, with respect to naturalized aliens this section has no application; but inasmuch as a British subject, whether he come from England, or India or Australia or New Zealand, is at the end of five years undeportable by reason of' 'the limitation imposed (by the statute, for I apprehend that the terms of the section are not sufficient to afford the minister power after five years-


Robert Forke: There is nothing in the act to bear that out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read it with that limitation imposed.


Robert Forke: Where do you find it in
the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section that deals
with the limitation of five years. It used to be three, if my memory serves me right.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend is
right, there was no necessity to change the act in 1919. It was changed for that purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was changed for this
purpose-I am sorry to be drawn away from my summary.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not intend to
interrupt my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is all right. The
change was made for the purpose of asserting the autonomous right of Canada to deal with immigrants of all countries on the same basis; but inasmuch as you could not convert a 
native born British subject into a Canadian citizen by any naturalization statute as you could the foreigner, because the British subject could not avail himself of the Naturalization Act, it followed'-[DOT]


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Surely a British subject
bom outside of Canada could acquire that special Canadian citizenship referred to in the Immigration Act by acquiring Canadian domicile, which he could do under the old act after five years. Then he was a Canadian citizen within the Immigration Act, and was not liable to deportation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the language is
"British subject", and I am dealing with the language as it stood. A British subject is a Canadian citizen, at any rate as soon as he comes within the country.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: But not within the meaning of the Immigration Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is within the meaning of the Naturalization Act. I wish to make that clear.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: But that is the distinction: he is not a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to make it clear
if I can-subject to these observations-that here was a class of immigrants that had to be dealt with. If you concede the right of the Canadian parliament to enact laws for the deportation of immigrants without trial -which has always been the law under the Immigration Act-for offences which are regarded as of a character to make them subject to a deportation order, you find there was a class that could not be dealt with by deportation unless this section were here. A man might come from India and preach open sedition against India, Australia, or the British Empire as a whole, he might say that the time had come when it should be broken up, and under this section we deport him. But if that section were not there he could not be deported.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh yes, if he wrere convicted under the criminal code.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say he is not deportable until he is convicted.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why should he be? He is not guilty until found so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the Immigration
Act was first passed, we have said: We are going to deport undesirables after investigation by a board of inquiry. Every other nation does the same.

Immigration Act
An lion. MEMBER:	Against citizens?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Citizens of what?


Robert Forke: Of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But these are not citizens of the country; that is the point.


Robert Forke: Has my hon. friend looked
into section 3, subsections (n) and (o), dealing with that class of people?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. My hon.
friend from Winnipeg South Centre read it to-day. That was a class of immigrants who had to be dealt with in some way, and this country asserted its sovereign power. We said that it made no difference whether they came from India or from the Philippine islands; whether they came from India or from Poland; whether they came from South Africa or from Poland; whether they came from Great Britain or from Russia: for the purposes of this act we were going to treat them all the same. But because there was no provision for Canadian citizenship, in the sense in which that term is used in the Naturalization Act, a British subject who came from India could not be naturalized, having his rights here as such, and therefore we could not report him unless we specially provided in the statute for so doing.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or prove him guilty of
his offence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend overlooks the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910 put on the statute book section 42 which provides for deportation, without conviction, of any alien-


Ernest Lapointe: Alien, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -who preaches sedition in this country. But the alien preaching sedition in Canada was in no different position from that of the man who came from India to preach sedition, except that the man from India or from Australia, say, had the advantage of this fact, that he could at once participate in the government of the country, or at least within a year, and did not have to be naturalized.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That is the distinction
between the two.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This country put them
on a parity in 1919.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Robert Forke: Why the necessity for the
1919 act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was what it was
done for.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it was so before, why pass the act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say it was so
before.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is my hon. friend's whole argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Dear! oh, dear! We
extended the class of subjects to which deportation was applicable. Let me put the matter clearly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the hon.
member a question? As a specific example of what this matter involves, my colleague was born in England, had been ten years in Canada, was an alderman of Winnipeg, and was arrested under this act. Was he or was he not a Canadian citizen?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not deported;
presumably he was a Canadian citizen.


James Shaver Woodsworth: He was liable to
deportation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He could not have been, because presumably he was naturalized.


Charles Avery Dunning: He \yas not naturalized;
he was British-born.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, under the terms
of this act, if to the satisfaction of a board of inquiry it was established that he had preached sedition, he stood in the same position as the man from Poland, say.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and liable
under this act to be deprived of all rights to trial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But all these immigrants subject to deportation for causes named are subject to deportation without trial.


Ernest Lapointe: But if the Pole has
become naturalized you cannot deport him.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Under the previous law,
after the British subject born outside of Canada had remained five years in Canada he would have acquired Canadian domicile, and by virtue of that domicile he would have become a Canadian citizen within the special meaning given that term in the Immigration Act. Thereafter, no matter what offence he might have committed, he could not have been deported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That begs the question.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Under the present act
he can be deported.
Immigration Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: That begs the question.
The issue, which is a simple one, is this: The parliament of Canada in 1919, for reasons which it considered sound, and with the approval of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and of the Liberal party, unanimously enacted this statute. The statute i3 now sought to be repealed. Has anyone been injured under it? Has any wrong been done? Is it desirable to remove from the statute book a provision which parliament in 1919 deemed desirable? Let us get down to that question. My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre suggested that in 1926 I dealt with the question in one way, and in 1927 in another. I turned up the record and this is the position I took: in both cases I declared that it was not desirable to repeal the statute. Although it might work a hardship there had been no cases under it, so far as I could see; and it was meant only for that class of immigrants who openly and notoriously preached sedition in this country. I went further. The statute of 1926 had substituted another section, and the discussion between the Minister of Justice and myself was a discussion as to what the meaning was if it should be passed in the form in which it was proposed. I held that it meant nothing if the contention he put forward was correct. But upon the question as to the desirability of repealing the statute, hon. members will find that my observations were practically the same in both cases, except for one circumstance. I happened to be on the train a few days previously, in one case, and I referred to certain articles that had appeared in the newspapers with reference to the preaching of sedition in one of our towns-* naming the place-from which seditious literature was being disseminated. That fact I alluded to. But with respect to the question itself, my remarks were the same on both occasions. The committee will recall, however, that in 1926 an endeavour was made to substitute a new section for that which was being repealed; whereas in the present instance it is not proposed to make any substitution at all.
Now let me conclude; I was about to summarize my observations when the minister asked me a question. It is conceded to be the right of all free people to determine who shall come within their boundaries.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Canadian people, in parliament assembled, have determined that certain classes may be deported without trial.

That has been so ever since the law was passed, and in 1910 Sir Wilfrid Laurier revised the whole Immigration Act, once more recognizing that principle. In 1919 parliament extended the law in its application to the number of persons who should come under it, including those who preached and taught sedition. That was the extension of the provision embracing those who could be deported without trial. That was all.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was much more than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It merely extended the
class.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was much wider than my hon. friend suggests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It extended the class to
all persons who were not Canadians; it included the alien immigrant who had not become naturalized and who therefore had to go, if he came within the terms of the law. And the British subject, whether he came from Hong Kong, from New Zealand or from Great Britain, was also subject to deportation if he come within the terms of the statute. That is all; nothing more and nothing less.


Mr. BROWN:: That is the thing we object
to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is precisely what the statute says; provided that it shall not apply to two classes, the British subject who was born in this country and who was given a status at once, and the naturalized Canadian. These could not be deported, and that for the reasons given this afternoon by the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: You claim that people
bom in Great Britain never become Canadians.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all. The minister has overlooked the fact that this parliament in 1919 unanimously asserted its sovereign right to determine that immigrants, regardless of where they came from, might be deported; and parliament declined, the Minister of Justice and many other members of the Liberal party within sound of my voice on the other side declined, to make a distinction for that purpose between immigrants, whether they came from a foreign country or from some other part of the British Empire.


Charles Avery Dunning: Twenty minutes before the governor general came in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That happens in all parliaments.

Immigration Act


Abraham Albert Heaps: According to my hon. friend a person bom in Great Britain is subject to deportation though he has been here forty years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is no limitation in the act there should be one.


An hon. MEMBER:: The old law stated that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The old law did not in terms; it did only by inference with respect to the alien who becomes naturalized, because the term is five years. It was only three years before, and the definition of citizenship extended the term to five years. I have always been in favour of a limitation with respect to all these matters. There is a limitation in the criminal code, and there should be a limitation of the time within which people may be deported by order in council. I have no doubt as to that; it is one of the matters I was discussing with one of my friends the other day, and if there is no clear limitation in the statute it would be quite right to impose it. However, I desire to press upon the committee the fact that this was an extraordinary enactment to meet extraordinary conditions-which may or may not ever again arise in Canada. When you have a combination of people who wish to destroy government and constituted authority you must have upon the statute books laws which will enable you to meet such a situation. Those who live within the law never need be afraid of it; there have been laws on the statute books of England since 900, continuously in force since the time of Alfred, and laws only apply to those who come within them. Laws are made for the purpose of dealing with those who come within their teTms, and when an extraordinary situation arises-


Charles Avery Dunning: Mainly one English law which permits a man to be condemned for a criminal offence without trial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have the same law providing for deportation from their country that we have in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quote it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I saw men deported from England myself.


Charles Avery Dunning: British subjects?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not talking about British subjects at the moment; I am talking about immigrants. My hon. friend is trying to draw a distinction between two classes of immigrants.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Is a Canadian deportable from England?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that
question; I simply stated that I knew of people being deported from England.


John Vallance: The minister referred to British subjects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not until later. Let us have no misapprehension about this. The power of deportation belongs to every sovereign people and is exercised everywhere. Canadians have been sent back from Australia, and last year we sent back to China several people rvho came from Hong Kong. The difficulty is that some of the committee are thinking only of the British Isles instead of British subjects as a whole.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question? What distinction does my hon. friend make between a British subject and a Canadian subject?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The distinction is that we are treating all immigrants alike regardless of where they came from. If they came from England they are British immigrants and if they came from the British Empire they are immigrants from the British Empire; they may be white or black, but as far as our power as a parliament is concerned they are on an equality and we have the same right to deport one as the other. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910 provided that aliens could be deported without trial, and if it is sound to deport aliens without trial, then those who come into this country and enjoy citizenship because they were born somewhere else should be subject to the same provisions as those who are not naturalized. Otherwise you would encourage one class to preach sedition who could not be dealt with except through trial by jury, while the other class could be deported without trial.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what we are doing now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we are not doing now.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is all right; I am satisfied that hon. gentlemen think it desirable to try to obtain favour from certain classes in the community by saying. "Look at this and that", but the real truth is that this country should treat alike all immigrants who have not become naturalized Canadians or who have not attained the status of Canadians. If we are to deal with the question properly we should define the conditions under which British subjects coming from other parts of the empire may attain the status of Canadians.
Immigration Act


John Vallance: That is what we want.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we want.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot !be a member of this parliament without being a Canadian citizen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the hon.
gentleman realizes that the oath he takes is taken as a British subject?


Charles Avery Dunning: But how do I vote, if not by virtue of my Canadian citizenship.


Ernest Lapointe: I hold in my hand the statutes of 1910, to which my hon. friend has referred. Sections 40 and 41 of chapter 27 of that statute deal with the deportation of prohibited and undesirable classes. In section 40 it was enacted that whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen, within three years after landing in Canada, was convicted of a criminal offence-


Charles Avery Dunning: Convicted!


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. It is the following section with which I wish to deal more particularly. Section 41 of the act of 1910 was replaced by the present section 41 which it is now sought to repeal, and it provided that whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocated in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of government or constituted authority, and so on, then the complaint must be laid against him and an investigation held, after which he might be deported. I desire to call the attention of the committee first to the words' of section 40:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen-
I would also point to the words of section 41:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen-
Who was a Canadian citizen under the act of 1910? That act provides that a Canadian
citizen is:
(1)	A person born in Canada who has not become an alien;
(2)	A British subject who has Canadian domicile ;
(3)	A person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile;
So there were three classes of Canadian citizens, first those born in Canada, then those British subjects bom outside of Canada who had acquired Canadian domicile, which at that time was three years and is now five years; and finally, persons naturalized under the laws of Canada. In 1919 this section 41 which it is now sought to repeal was replaced

by a section which enacted that every person who by word or act in Canada sought to overthrow by force or violence government or constituted authority, or who belonged or was suspected of belonging to societies of a certain class, and so on, might be deported. But there was an exception, which provided that the section would not apply to any person who was a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada. Under the old section 41 no Canadian citizen could be so deported; as my hon. friend said, this applied only to aliens. A Canadian citizen could not be deported and could not be treated as a person desiring to overthrow government by violence and so on unless he was convicted after a fair trial. As I have said, in 1919 this section was replaced, and under that amendment only two classes of Canadian citizens became exempt from that provision, those born in Canada and those aliens who became naturalized in Canada. The second class of Canadian citizens, namely British subjects bom outside of Canada who had acquired Canadian domicile by a residence of five years in Canada, were placed in the same situation as aliens, as men who never had been naturalized and who could be deported by a board of investigation without any trial. That is why this section is so objectionable. I certainly agree with my hon. friend when he says that every country must be mistress of her own citizenship, and must determine who are the people who may become citizens of that particular country I certainly agree with my hon. friend, and that is why we have provisions in our Immigration Act which permit the government of Canada or the Department of Immigration to prevent the entry into Canada of people who are undesirable either by reason of bad health or otherwise. But a man who has been admitted to Canada and has become a Canadian citizen under the law-because the law states that after a domicile of five years he is a Canadian citizen in every respect-must be treated as any other Canadian citizen and must not be deported without being convicted of the offence with which he is charged. Certainly it seems so unfair that one class of Canadian citizen should be considered as inferior to another that merely to set forth the case should be sufficient to convince everybody of the existence of an anomaly. A country cannot be half slave and half free. Surely half of our Canadian citizenship cannot be enjoying certain privileges that are denied to the other half. Canadians are all equal, and that is why we are asking for the repeal of that

Immigration Act
section-in o-rder that those of our citizens who, being British subjects born outside of Canada, have acquired the full right of Canadian citizenship by domicile in this country, should not be made, under this exceptional class, subject to deportation without due form of law.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am sorry to take up
more of the time of the committee, but I feel I cannot allow certain suggestions made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to go unchallenged.
I was a little surprised at the statement of the law given to the committee by the hon. leader of the opposition. The Minister of Justice has fully set forth the law as it is now and as it was prior to the enactment of this particular section. Prior to the enactment of the section which we are now discussing, no person could be deported at all, whether he had been convicted or not, after he had acquired Canadian citizenship. There has been a good deal of confusion in the discussion because of the different meanings in law of the expression "Canadian citizenship/' "Canadian citizenship'' is used in the Immigration Act in a special sense. It has nothing to do with conferring rights to vote or the right to take part in the nation's business. The Minister of Railways and Canals does not get his right to sit in this house by virtue of the Canadian citizenship which is referred to in the Immigration Act. In the Immigration Act, as the Minister of Justice has explained, "Canadian citizen" means a person born in Canada who has not become an alien, a British subject who has Canadian domicile-which he can get after five years' residence in Canada-or an alien naturalized under the law of Canada. Under the law as it existed prior to the enactment of this section which we are now considering, once a man had obtained Canadian citizenship within the meaning of the term in the Immigration Act, he could not be deported no matter what offence he commtted. Under the present section, however, a British subject bom outside of Canada, no matter in what part of the British dominions, can never acquire Canadian citizenship within that special meaning of the term in order to exempt himself from the provisions of section 41; that was the important change that was made in this legislation that was rushed through the house in the speedy manner which I described this afternoon.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre suggested that I had not placed all the facts before the house when I commented upon the speedy manner in which this 'legislation 56103-160
was put through. I made the statement that this legislation was railroaded through. I was met with the reply that the unanimous consent of the house was asked and given to the 'reading of this bill in the manner in which it was read. Consent cannot be said to be real unless made with knowledge of the facts. The Minister of Immigration, who introduced this bill, mentioned certain changes that had been made, certain differences between the bill that was being introduced' and the bill which had previously passed both houses of parliament. I have indicated, I think, very clearly the main difference between the two bills; that difference was never indicated to the house; every other difference except this important one that we have been discussing for the past several hours was indicated to the house, -but this material change was not made known to the house. The Minister of Immigration said, at page 3213 of Hansard under date of June 6, 1919:
While there is some material difference between the two sections still the main purpose of the section is as it was expressed in the section as originally introduced to the house.
I think that I indicated previously that every person under the previous law who had acquired Canadian citizenship was exempt from deportation. Now, British subjects bom outside of Canada can never obtain exemption from deportation. That was the essential difference made in the new section, and that difference was never revealed to the house. I challenge any member on the other side of the house to show where that difference was made clear. I do not believe that the house would have consented to the passing of that act into law if that important change had been brought to its attention. It was not, I say, brought to its attention, and therefore I think I am justified in the statement that this section was railroaded through the house.. The house was misled as to the important and radical change that was being made. It was misled as to the purpose of the section. Anyone reading the short debate in the senate will readily see what was the real purpose of the change.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
make a few remarks on the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in regard to the difficulty he experienced on his return to Canada on the occasion to which he referred. Members of parliament who have not had some difficulties in this connection may not understand the tremendous pressure that comes from all sides on the part of undesirable people who want to get into Canada. Whatever trouble we may

Immigration Act

have in getting the right people, those whom we want, there is no difficulty in getting the sort' of people we do not want. This explains to some extent at least why difficulty, is experienced by would-be immigrants when they are trying to get into Canada. I might mention the case of one who originally came to this country as an immigrant from Great Britain and who took a trip abroad last summer. On his return all he had to say to the immigration officials was that he was a returning Canadian and there was no further trouble. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre must have been more suspicious-looking than this man if they asked him so many questions before they would allow him to return.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What date was that?


Robert Forke: The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) told me that that was his experience last summer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These regulations were
promulgated in January.


Robert Forke: I do not want to make any apology for the department in regard to these questions. They may be right or they may be wrong. It takes time to secure the best regulations. I mention that only to show that the regulations are framed to prevent so far as possible the necessity for deporting undesirables, because there is no greater tragedy than that of having to tell people, once they have come to the shores of Canada, that they cannot be allowed to enter. Unless our immigration officials put some questions to a person who is coming to Canada, how are they to know whether he is a returning Canadian or an immigrant? If any mistakes occur, if needless questions are being asked, I shall be only too glad to have them eliminated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The questions are an insult.


Robert Forke: That may be. I looked over those questions, and perhaps the dramatic manner in which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre read them put a different appearance on them, because I could not see anything very serious in them. Only five of the questions had to be answered by the. hon. member. He said that he had to answer nine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There were twenty-six to be answered. The minister is not stating what is in accordance with the regulations.


Robert Forke: I have the document under my hand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: So have I.
IMr. Forke.]


Robert Forke: The hon. member did not
need to answer all the questions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I did. I had to answer every one.


Robert Forke: The hon. member answered them but he did not need to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why?


Robert Forke: Because they were not necessary in his case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister show me on this document where that is stated?


Robert Forke: I have not the hon. member's document, but I have under my hand the ship's document and there is no such thing as twenty-six questions on it. I will let any hon. member see it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the document I have. That is another document altogether.


Robert Forke: The hon. member has not the proper document.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am talking about the document which I had to fill out.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Who gave it to the hon. member?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Canadian National
Railways.


Robert Forke: At that time the Canadian National were probably very glad to get the hon. member to fill out all those questions. I know something about the whole transaction and there was a determined effort on the part of certain interests to make the thing appear as ridiculous as possible. They were certainly anxious to get the people to fill out as many questions as possible. As a returning Canadian the hon. member was required to answer only five questions so far as the Immigration department is concerned. I say that to make the matter clear. I think the house will believe me when I say that as Minister of Immigration I want to make all the success I can of my department. Things may have happened that ought not to have happened. If there have been mistakes; if I were convinced that the hon. member had more questions to answer than were necessary, I would be anxious to have the matter remedied immediately and I should like to find out what really happened.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me tell the minister
frankly that I protested against having to fill out this document. I had to fill it out both for my wife and for myself, although we came back on different dates.

Immigration Act


Robert Forke: I cannot understand that,
because no more questions are asked of a returning Canadian than of a Canadian going to Great Britain and the position with regard to the photograph is exactly the same. It is very difficult to know just what sort of questions should be asked. Immigration officials and transportation officials do not know the difference between one man and another, and consequently some questions which may seem ridiculous when asked of one man may be necessary in another case. The questions are framed with the intention of carrying out the regulations in the best possible way.
Regarding the argument that has been made by the leader of the opposition to-night, I agree with him in many respects, and I do not think we differ very much. If deportations could not take place after Canadian domicile had been secured, I do not think this debate would have been necessary. We all agree with that. His argument is all along the line of deporting immigrants and no one has ever contended that the Department of Immigration should not have the power to deport undesirable immigrants. I hope the house will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are uttered because I am anxious to have regulations that will be in the best interests of Canada and if any mistakes have been made I am only too anxious to have them remedied as quickly as possible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I may ask the
house to return for a few minutes to the matter under discussion I should like to make some remarks before the measure is proceeded with. As I listened to the involved and lengthy statement of the law as given by the leader of the opposition I was reminded of some words of Disraeli, who said:
The legal mind chiefly displayed itself in illustrating the obvious, explaining the evident and expatiating on the commonplace.
I am inclined to think most of the members knew more about this before the discussion started than they do now. The leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre both made a strong point the other night that the sedition act had received a great deal of consideration and therefore should remain on the statute books. I do not see that they have made out a very good case for legislation that was passed through both houses in about half an hour. That has not been over-emphasized to-day. In fact the other evening the leader of the opposition dealt most unmercifully with my colleague because he had suggested that the sedition act was passed in a hurry through the house. There is not the slightest doubt that he made a mistake; that he confused these 56103-1601
two acts which have been very closely associated ever since they were given royal assent at the same time and while they have been discussed in this house year after year. My colleague unfortunately made a mistake in regard to the two acts, but personally I felt very sorry that the leader of the opposition gave the impression that he did so in order to mislead the house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -and further that he went up and down the country claiming that this was the way in which legislation was dealt with in parliament. As a matter of fact the legislation that we are dealing with to-night was passed through this house in 1919 in twenty minutes.


Charles Avery Dunning: And without explanation
as to what it really meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And unanimously.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am suggesting
half an hour for the two houses. There is no doubt that that is the way the legislation was passed through the house so that a great deal that the leader of the opposition said the other day goes by the board, does not apply. I do not think even he could contend that a matter which came up in the most incidental fashion, whether or not the house was fully cognizant of all the circumstances, and which was simply passed through as hurriedly as they could put through the three readings, received adequate attention at the hands of the house. We must admit that it was panicky legislation, and now after nine years have passed we might very well ask ourselves whether or not it is wise to let such legislation remain on the statute books. If we look back at the documents of those times we shall find that Sir Robert Borden, who was leading the house, was discussing some matter with regard to the war purchasing commission, and in the midst of a sentence he broke off to say this:
My colleague the Minister of Immigration tells me that there is a very important bill to which the attention of the house should be directed at once with a view to its being assented to this afternoon. I would therefore ask that this debate be adjourned to be resumed again this day if the house will consent.
And the motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned. The house went immediately into a discussion of this Immigration Act amendment, which, by the way, was not the minor amendment that I think the hon. member for Vancouver Oentre would have us believe, but was a distinct bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: An amendment to a
previous bill in the same session which had been already considered.
Immigration Act


James Shaver Woodsworth: But a distinct
bill, and this new bill was considered for only these few minutes.
The leaders of the opposition wanted to tell us that the reason for the passage of this bill was that we should not relinquish our rights to deport people who came here from South Africa or Australia or China or India. Well, the conversations which went on at the time clearly indicated that that was distinctly not the purpose of the introduction of .this measure. Let me read a sentence or two:
It will be obvious that we could not deport a Canadian citizen, because there is no place to deport him to. We do not deport British subjects who are such by naturalization, but we propose-
Listen to this:
-but we propose to bring in an amendment to the Naturalization Act by which we shall denaturalize undesirables regardless of the country from which they come, thus permitting deportation within the limit of time prescribed by the statute.
That was said by an hon. gentleman in the other house, where the bill originated. I think we can understand the spirit that characterized the 'putting of this legislation on the statute book. It was found, as was very dlearly shown by the correspondence between the Minister of Justice and the authorities in Winnipeg, that the desire was to deal with certain British-born subjects. As was then stated so clearly in the senate:
The truth is, if you look at the names of the persons who are leading in these demonstrations in Winnipeg, they are not foreign names; they are all British and American.
And the idea was to deal with these Britishers whom they could not deal with under the existing legislation. Further, in order that there should be no possibility of escape, this legislation was made retroactive. Mr. Lemieux noticed that at the time and said:
My hon. friend seems to be passing retroactive legislation. If a man has entertained the views which are to be condemned since 1910, he is presumed to come within the prohibited classes. A man might have entertained these views in 1910, and since that time his views might have undergone a change, and he might have become a new man.
Surely we cannot advocate retroactive legislation of that nature. But Mr. Calder merely brushed that aside with the remark, "That is only prima facie. He can prove the contrary."
I should like for a moment to call attention to one or two of the clauses of this act which
*Alr. Stevens.]
is to be repealed. Paragraph (b) of section 41 defiines as an undesirable one who:
(b)	without lawful authority assumes any powers of government in Canada or in any part thereof.
The strikers at that time had undoubtedly considerable power in their hands. By a vote given by the trades and labour council, nearly all the workingmen in Winnipeg had laid down their tools, and nearly all the services of the city were at a standstill. It was said that because these men had assumed authority over their fellow strikers, therefore they had assumed governmental authority. That was the point at issue. The strikers were accused of having assumed governmental authority. Possibly their authority was a good deal greater than at ordinary time. It might be argued that it was greater than any ordinary body of citizens ought to have, but if it was, there was also an extra governmental authority in the board of trade rooms, where the business men of the city had undertaken to do just as far-reaching things as the workers had agreed to do in the trades and labour temple. In the meantime the civic authorities did not know what to do in that novel situation. The provincial government people were doing what they could to bring about a reconciliation between these two opposing forces in the industrial world, and in the very midst of that situation the federal authorities entered, and in my judgment blundered egregiously by passing legislation of this kind and threatening to deport those strike leaders. They were going to deport them on the ground that they were assuming governmental powers. You can understand what was the feeling among these men, ordinary workingmen of the city of Winnipeg, many of whom had been in the city for five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, when they were suddenly faced with the possibility of being thrust out of the country because they were said to be assuming more than ordinary authority, and this legislation undoubtedly was specially designed to meet that situation and to break that strike. That was its purpose. I think anyone who reads the telegrams which were put on the record two years ago by the present Minister of Labour will be fully convinced that that was the purpose of this legislation.
Further, this legislation has the same phrasing as the act dealing with sedition. Let me read this clause. Anyone is considered to be undesirable who:
(c)	by common repute belongs to or is suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization,

Immigration Act
and so on. That is my objection-"or is suspected of" belonging to any organization. Suspicion becomes the ground of action. Merely because the immigration authorities suspect that somebody belongs to an illegal society, they can have an investigation within their own rooms, and have the suspect shipped abroad.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre said that no one had ever been deported under this act. No, but an effort was made to deport. An investigation was held concerning certain individuals, but the evidence was so flimsy, and the feeling throughout the country so strong, that the authorities dare not-I speak advisedly; I think the whole circumstances warrant me in saying this-that the authorities dare not proceed under this act. I hold in my hand a copy of the editorial page of the Manitoba Free Press of June 20, 1919, and it shows undoubtedly that the idea was to deport these men summarily under this act.
In an interjection I suggested the case of my colleague here, a man born in England, a workingman in the city of Winnipeg, an alderman of that city. He had the misfortune, shall I say, to have been bom in England, and some of those in authority who were closely in touch with the employers in Winnipeg at that time had the right to ship him back to England without trial. That is what was intended to be done. In a telegram that I myself read in this house two years ago, and which some hon. members may remember, Air. Aleighen actually said that these men, although he had his doubts as to whether their arrest and detention at Stony Mountain was legal, now that the arrests had been made, should be immediately deported, and further that they could regularize that action afterwards. That was the attitude.
I will give another instance, the case of a man who is now the leader in the Labour group in the provincial house at Winnipeg, an alderman at that time, who was arrested and was to be deported with the others. Although he had been many years in the city and was well known he was to shipped out without trial. I will give another case. A minister in good standing at the time, in the Methodist church William Ivens, was editing the labour paper. His house was entered at midnight, and with others he was placed in a high-powered car and taken away to Stony Mountain penitentiary. He with these others was to be shipped out of the country without any trial whatever. Can any hon. gentleman justify that kind of thing? I fail to see on what grounds justification can be offered.
If it is possible to get away from some of these legal subtleties-I would say legal quibbles-I may be allowed to suggest one or two of the outstanding questions to be decided in connection with this legislation. I will admit that its ostensible purpose was to keep out undesirable immigrants, but its real purpose was to punish certain individuals who were already in the country. Many of them, had been here for five, ten and fifteen years, and in the opinion of those who sought the legislation they could not be punished in any other way. So a conspiracy-I think it was nothing less-was formed to take away the right of the British born to trial by jury and ship these men out without trial. I may say that there was such a protest from all over this country and from Great Britain as well that that purpose was not carried out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Conspiracy" is a little strong. The present Minister of Justice was one of the members of this house who acquiesced in the legislation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not defending the Minister of Justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say conspiracy is not a parliamentary word.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think that is pretty much in t'he category of "bargain"; i3 it not? That is my inference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I wish to resent the inference that the silence of the Liberal party on that occasion constituted a conspiracy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A conspiracy of
silence.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There can be no conspiracy without knowledge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then there must hare.1
been a unanimity of ignorance.	[DOT]


James Shaver Woodsworth: Again let me say that we who for some years have urged the removal of this clause have had to suffer' some very unjust imputations. Personally I have n)o objection to deporting undesirables. If we 'have undesirables in the Dominion, whether they are English or alien, I have no objection to deporting them; but I would insist that they be not deported without trial; which is another matter. I know perfectly well that there are certain classes of people who within a few days or weeks after their arrival are found to be undesirable. The leader of the opposition has read a long list of classes, such as the feeble-minded, prostitutes, and others of that type, obviously un-
Immigration Act

desirable, members of which might be deported without trial. Well, if investigation made immediately after their arrival shows they are of that class, I presume we are all quite willing that they should be shipped out. But I submit that this kind of alleged crime is in a different category, this is a political crime, a crime that is committed after the people have attempted to become domiciled-although indeed they cannot establish domicile if they come within this class. SureQy a curious arrangement! So I wish to make it very clear 'that in urging the repeal of this legislation we are not trying to prevent the deportation of undesirables. I would go further and say that if people guilty of the crimes enumerated in this section are given a fair trial, and found guilty, I would not object to their being deported; but we are insisting that they be given a fair trial, and surely not even my Conservative friends will deny that to be a reasonable position for us to take. We have been accused of trying to shelter criminaJls. We are not trying to shelter criminals, not even this class of people, but we are saying it must be clearly demonstrated that they are guilty of the crimes with which they are charged.
Now, who are these criminals? That brings us back to the whole Winnipeg situation, and before I sit down I should like to say a word with reference to it, because I am convinced that members on both sides of the house have been misled in regard to this strike and the labour movement. As is well known, in 1918 and 1919 there was a good deal of unrest all over the world. Nearly all of us immediately after the war were looking to reconstruction-that was the word in everybody's mouth-and labour as well as other classes of the community were discussing it. There had been the great turmoil in Russia, and while a good many Canadian workmen did not wish to see the Russian experiment repeated in this country, there is no doubt they were greatly interested in what had taken place over there and frequently discussed it at their meetings. That frightened a good many business men, and I know a report was presented by the commissioner of the mounted police to the government of the day outlining the situation amongst the labour people. From all I know of that report and of the people who made the investigation, 1 am quite convinced that it was entirely misleading. The investigators jumped at conclusions-they knew so little of what was really the mind of the labour people. Undoubtedly labour all over the world had been advocating a radical change

in our economic structure. We all know that the great change when we passed from hand to machine work is referred to by historians as the industrial revolution. Most of the workers bellieve that before very long the tools of production must be owned in some way collectively in order that every man may have a better chance than he has to-day, and this change is commonly known in labour and socialist circles the world over as the coming "economic revolution." And so, as soon as these investigators-ignorant men- heard this term, "economic revolution," they immediately jumped to the conclusion that the workingmen wanted to have a violent political revolution here in Canada. I do not intend to dismiss that in detail, but I would say this:	in all the investigations
which were made in 1919 there was not discovered a single gun in the hands of any workingman. Now, if the workers were going to overthrow the government of this country by force, surely they would have had three or four guns somewhere among them; but, I repeat, there was not one. And yet so hysterical were a good many of the officials at that time that they believed there was to be an overthrow of the government of Canada by force! At the very time despatches of that kind were going out from the city of Winnipeg-and from them you would imagine that the streets were running in blood-at that very time the provincial government officials were sitting down with the workingmen carefully negotiating schedules. I think my friend from Winnipeg South Centre, who spoke this afternoon, will bear out my statements. As a matter of fact he himself, as he intimated to-day, was engaged in the prosecution; that was part of his legal work at that time. He was in close touch with What took place, and hence I am very glad to find that he is among those who are moving for the repeal -of this legislation.
What about the Winnipeg strike, which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) characterizes as an unprecedented situation that called forth this extraordinary act? What about- it? We in the west-and even the hon. member for West Calgary will sympathize with me on this particular point-have always rather felt that the east was going a little more slowly than we wanted to go, and so back in 1918 the labour people met in convention in eastern Canada, and it was decided that the next year there would be a western convention of the western delegates of the Trades and Labour Congress. They held a meeting in Calgary to consider how they could evolve a more effective kind of labour organization. Some of them suggested that they

Immigration Act
should have something in the form of what they called a One Big Union, So that instead of being divided into a great many little cliques and crafts they should get together in one effective body. The bankers had one bankers' association, and the manufacturers had one association, whether their members were engaged in boot or furniture manufacture or in milling.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did I understand my hon. friend to say that the meeting in Calgary of the so-called O.B.U. was under the auspices of	the	Trades	and	Labour	Congress	of
Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; I want to make that clear. I said that the delegates who were present at Quebec in 1918-the delegates of the labour congress-decided that the western delegates of that organization should meet in conference at Calgary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was that with the consent of	the	Trades	and	Labour	Congress	of
Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. There is little done in the west that meets with the approval of the east; I am afraid this is true in some other matters as well. I do not want to give the impression that this convention had the approval of the congress, but the western representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress thought they wanted a more effective labour organization in the west than the east would stand for, and so they had this meeting in Calgary. They said: "We are divided into a great many little organizations. Let us get together into one effective organization." And they called it the One Big Union. I will not discuss the merits of the organization; the advocates may have been right or they may have been wrong, but that was their opinion at that time. They said, "We are not sure whether the rank and file of the labour people want to have this. We will therefore take a vote of the members of the unions throughout the west". Remember, there was at this time no one big union in existence; it was simply a proposal. The leaders said they would take a vote on this among the trade unionists throughout western Canada.
In the meantime there arose trouble in the city of Winnipeg between the ironmasters at the head of the contract shops and the men in their employ. The men wanted to join with the employees in similar trades in the railway shops. The ironmasters said, "We are willing to deal with our own men, but we refuse to deal with an organization that includes both mechanics in the contract shops and mechanics in the railway shops". There
was a great deal of controversy over this, and the matter was referred to the Trades and Labour Council of Winnipeg, a body affiliated with and under the jurisdiction of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. The Trades and Labour Council of Winnipeg discussed the situation and voted that they would go out on a general sympathetic strike. That strike was called on May fifteenth. It was so complete that it surprised even the workers themselves. Actually it not only paralyzed the activities of the city of Winnipeg, but threw into hysterics the business and professional people of the city. They thought that it was a revolution. That is the situation that prevailed at that time; that, in brief, is how it came about. The statement was made the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that it was a One Big Union strike. As a matter of fact the vote had not yet been taken as to whether or not there was to be a One Big Union. There is no doubt that many of the leading spirits in the strike were in favour of that form of organization. I do not deny that at all. But the vote had not been taken and the organization known as the One Big Union did not come into existence until the strike was all over. The strike order, as a matter of fact, was signed by the president and the secretary of the Trades and Labour Council of Winnipeg. That is the background in outline of the Winnipeg strike.
I do not want to enter into the merits of the strike. A strike is a very serious thing, and this strike was a serious thing for Winnipeg. I would say this however: A great many of the citizens, because they did not understand anything about the labour movement, were altogether unfit to judge of the real factors that were at work. I myself have been accused of having been in the strike. I had nothing to do with it until it was half over. When I arrived in Winnipeg it was the third week of the strike and I did not take any very active interest in things until this legislation was passed and the leaders of the strike were summarily arrested, with the idea that they were to be deported. Then I took the attitude which I take now, that this was outrageous legislation and that these arrests were absolutely unjustifiable. The workers at that time were accused of being seditious; some of them were sent to gaol for a year as guilty of seditious conspiracy. Let me say, however, that three of these men were elected to the legislature of Manitoba while they' were still in gaol. The day after they were released from gaol they walked over from the gaol to take their .places in the provincial legislature. That was the verdict, not
Immigration Act

of twelve men, but of the city of Winnipeg; and I think that I would rather take the verdict of the voting population than the verdict of twelve men, especially twelve men selected as those jurymen were. Another labour man who was then a member of the provincial house, Mr. F. J. Dixon, was tried and acquitted, and he was re-elected by the most overwhelming majority that any man has ever received at the hands of the city of Winnipeg.
I know there are two classes still in Winnipeg, one being the employers who believe that revolution was successfully checkmated, although I would say that the great majority of the citizens at this time are willing to forget all this trouble. They say that it belongs to the past and it should be allowed to remain there. Some of us would gladly forget it if you could have removed from our statute books those measures which may make it possible to arrest men under similar circumstances at some future time. That is why we have kept the matter alive. We do not want to resurrect the events of eight or nine years ago, but we do believe that it is in the interests of British justice in this country, in the interests of fair play to the labour men, that discriminatory legislation of this character should no longer remain on the statute books. I have gone into this matter because there has been so much misrepresentation with regard to the whole situation, and especially with regard to the part that some of us have tried to play in bringing about a repeal of this law.
One word more. A great many people are afraid of the menace of communism, and they are talking very wildly about it, even in the city of Ottawa. They are for example confusing the communist party and the One Big Union. If they would read the journals of those two branches of the labour movement they would find them bitterly attacking each other, and they would see that these two organizations consider themselves sworn enemies. Yet there are those in this parliament, who should know better, who will deliberately make statements that confuse the public mind by suggesting that these two organizations are identical. Such statements are grotesquely untrue, as anyone at all in touch with the labour movement knows very well.
I ventured to dissent the other night from what some of the hon. members said on the ground that I refused to admit that the labour people as a class were less loyal than other people; I believe that our labour people are just as good citizens as any other class in

this country. I can quite understand that there are those who are getting along very well in this country and who are quite contented with the general status quo. I am not at all sure from what I see of things that the bankers want any great change; I do not know that those who have high tariffs at present desire anjr particular change; I am not sure that some of the railway companies want a change. Naturally the people who want changes are those who feel the ill effects of the present system. I do object that they should be declared disloyal because they want to bring about these changes. Personally I have never advocated force as a means of bringing about political changes, although others have done so. This government rests upon force; we were told during the war that the only way to overcome our enemies was by means of force. I quoted a passage from a newspaper the other evening in which a gentleman speaking before the St. George's Society in Winnipeg said that force was the only way in which all great reforms had come about in Great Britain, That is common talk, and you cannot wonder that the rank and file of the labour people have followed that teaching and are coming to believe that the only way in which they can gain their ends is by means of force. As I say, I have never taken that view. I do not believe in force to-day as the means of settling international disputes, and I do not believe in force as a means of settling our industrial disputes. I would rather make an appeal to reason, but I know some of our labour people do not hold this view, just as some members of this parliament do not have this view. That is my position, but holding that position I would still say that when there are organizations in this country which are trying to bring about changes to better their conditions, we should surround them with eveiy safeguard in order that they might have the utmost freedom of expression and organization so that they may use what are considered legitimate ways to bring about the desired ends.
In closing, I would say that if you want to create rebellion, then bring in more repressive measures and grind down the people still further. I think none of us wants to do that. Since 1919 industrial commissions have urged time and again that certain changes should be brought about in Canada to better the conditions of the working class, but nothing has been dene along the lines suggested; we are meeting in parliament after parliament, and are doing practically nothing. Is it any wonder that fiery spirits among the

Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinjret
labour people get disgusted with the slow constitutional means, and that occasionally a man gets upon the platform and says something which may 'be construed as being seditious? Let me say that if we are to preserve this country and all that is best in it we must see to it that the common people are given the very fullest opportunities possible. I am very glad that this house has at last come to the point where the majority are willing to remove a piece of legislation which has been a source of irritation and which the labour people feel has been a rank injustice.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the third reading of the bill.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I would just like to point out to the house that in 1919 the amendment was first introduced on April 7. I have it under my hand at the moment, and it was discussed again on April 29; again on May 1; again on May 9, and again on May 12, when it was passed.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That was not the bill
which we are now discussing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The amendment to the
Immigration Act to which this bill was merely an amendment, passed in the same session.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The section we are discussing was brought in as a separate bill on June 6.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have it right here. The original bill amending the Immigration Act included the section which this bill amended later in the session, in June. It was introduced on April 7 and discussed on the dates which I have mentioned. Later the Minister of Immigration came to the house

.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: But, Mr. Speaker,-.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a moment; the hon. member has been on his feet a good many times this afternoon and evening.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: What was the number of the bill introduced on April 7? The bill introduced on June 6 was No. 132 and was a different bill from that introduced on April
7.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. The
hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor and should be heard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The bill was discussed on the date I have mentioned and received its third reading on May 12. Then the Minister
of Immigration found that section 41 did not quite meet the situation, and he introduced another bill on June 6 which passed through this house by unanimous consent and received third reading on the same day.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: A separate bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Naturalization Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The object of this bill is
to repeal certain sections of the Naturalization Act whereby applicants for naturalization must appear before the courts of the country and go through a certain procedure before the Secretary of State can finally decide on their applications. This bill has been before the house on several occasions, but has not been very fully discussed, and I think it would be proper, in moving the second reading of the bill, that I should crave the indulgence of the house to bring forward certain facts, documents and arguments which will explain the situation. Perhaps as a preface to my explanation it might be of interest briefly to outline the beginnings of naturalization in this country in so far as the principle of recognition of attained British citizenship is concerned.
Under the French regime, nationality was acquired through individual letters of denization issued by the king. Under the British regime, royal letters patent were also necessary to confer British nationality; and that condition obtained for quite a time. But in Quebec, it seems, according to a letter from Murray, of 1765, that it was sufficient to secure the prerogatives of a British subject, to take the oaths of allegiance and have one's name written in the register kept for the purpose. Evidently this procedure, while conferring certain privileges, did not secure naturalization, which remained a matter reserved to the home government. In the instructions to Lord Dorchester as governor of Lower Canada, 16th September, 1791, clause 17, the king declares "that you do not upon any pretence whatsoever give your assent to any bill or bills that may hereafter be passed by the legislative council and assembly of the province under your government for the naturalization of aliens." This shows that the British government at the time was reserving such bills for the royal assent.

Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinfret
In 1793 an act was passed by the legislature of Lower Canada establishing regulations respecting aliens and obliging them to secure certificates for the time of their residence in Canada. It contained no regulation as to their naturalization. The above act expired in 1795, but was continued to the 7th of May, 1796. It was always necessary to get full naturalization to secure royal letters patent.
I do not think I need go into the matter so extensively as to mention the different acts that were passed in 1817, in 1826, and in 1828, either in Lower or Upper Canada; suffice it to say that during that time all these legislative enactments could not confer anything like naturalization as we understand it to-day, as this was strictly reserved to the British parliament.
In 1844 the British parliament had to deal with the question, a more modern interpretation of the rights and privileges of British subjects being necessary owing to the development of foreign travel, due to the rapid expansion of transportation facilities and the large number seeking British citizenship. Complications apparently arose, and in 1847 the British parliament took cognizance of the colonial measures as being repugnant to the legislation of the home authorities of 1844, especially in regard to the recognition of British citizenship abroad. The principle was definitely and clearly enunciated that any rights of citizenship conferred by the colonies were confined absolutely to the territorial domain of the colony concerned. From this on a certain degree of friction developed as discontent became general over the dual status of naturalized colonials. This dual citizenship did not bother those who remained in the colony, but once a man went abroad he was faced with the situation of being liable for the exactions and laws of his own native country and had no right to the protection of the British flag.
Considerable correspondence was conducted between the colonies and the home authorities, but the British parliament clung to its original position until about 1870, when an act was passed permitting conventions with the various countries arranging for mutual recognition of the right of their citizens to change their allegiance. A minute of council in 1880 reveals a request from the home authorities, suggesting a period of five years residence as a prelude to a treaty between the British parliament and the government of the British dominions. This was agreed to in so far as passports were concerned, the

three year term being retained for civil rights within Canada.
The British authorities, I may explain, went part way in providing a palliative measure by arranging with the consular service to issue passports providing the term of residence abroad did not exceed one year. The principle was thus clearly defined that imperial legislation was supreme even after 1867, when, by the British North America Act Canada was given the right to legislate for the naturalization of aliens. This condition of affairs continued, and it was not until the imperial conference of 1911 that an agreement was reached to establish a citizenship recognizable everywhere. At this conference was urged the recognition of the principle: A British subject anywhere, a British subject everywhere. This view triumphed after a lengthy debate, the British authorities remaining firm in their adherence to the five year term, which was accepted by the dominions. Previously Canada had had a three year term only.
As a prelude to this new understanding, the British parliament passed an act which became the model for the dominions' legislation. The right was reserved at the conference for the dominions to retain full control of local regulations aside from the five years' residence clause, which was made imperative. The British parliament endowed the Secretary of State for Home Affairs with power to grant naturalization, and this method of imposing responsibility on a minister was followed by all the other dominions, with the exception of Canada.
I thought, Mr. Speaker, it would be worth while for me to present these facts in concise form in order that the house may understand the evolution of the granting of naturalization certificates in this country. As I have said, before 1911 naturalization in this country obtained only for local territory and could not in any way confer British citizenship or recognition; and it was only after the conference of 1911 that the British government, in conference with representatives of the different dominions, agreed on certain regulations whereby every dominion would be placed in a position to confer naturalization that would obtain throughout the British Empire. And it was after that conference and in accordance with that principle that in 1914 the then Borden government, through the Hon. Mr. Doherty, presented to this house the bill which became the act under which we are at present working. The essential feature of that bill was, as I have said, to make it possible to confer in this country naturalization that would obtain throughout

Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinjret
the British Empire. Among the qualifications necessary to obtain such naturalization was included the residential clause of five years, which was a new feature in our Canadian legislation. It also contained that very important feature which was new: it granted, after the courts had passed upon the application, discretion to the Secretary of State to refuse naturalization notwithstanding their decision.
The act of 1914 gave to the Secretary of State, under a section which I will read in a moment, absolute discretion to grant or to refuse a certificate of naturalization, but it stipulated that the application could not reach the Secretary of State unless a court of this country had pronounced in favour of it. I contend that when we adopted that dual system in 1914, we were doing something different from what existed in the mother country at that time and from what existed in every other British dominion.
In 1919 certain amendments were proposed; but as they have no bearing on the question which is now before the house, I am merely mentioning the fact. In 1920 the Canadian parliament reverted to the bill of 1914 and we have now in the revised statutes of to-day an act embodying the conditions adopted in 1914 and revived in 1920. If an applicant now desires to obtain naturalization, the procedure is to apply to the department: but before the department of the Secretary of State can pass upon the application it must be submitted to a court, and only when the court has decided whether or not the applicant has the necessary requirements for naturalization can the Secretary of State exercise his discretion. What is proposed by this bill is to do away with the reference to the courts, to do away with the system which has been modelled more or less on the United States system, and to adopt the British system endowing the Secretary of State with full responsibility and discretion as is the case in every other dominion of the empire.
As I have said, this bill has already been before the house several times and I do not think it has yet received proper treatment. It has either been discarded or discussed very rapidly, and I think we owe it to the house and to the principle of the measure to consider it very thoroughly during the course of the present session. By this bill we are seeking to amend our regulations so as to conform to the statutes of the imperial parliament and the other dominions. I do not think it will be necessary for me to indicate the system followed in the other dominions, although I shall do so with pleasure in committee if
hon. members so desire. I have the facts before me but I believe it would only prolong my explanation if I placed them on Hansard now.


Robert James Manion: What was the system in Canada before 1914?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have just said that then the * courts were dealing altogether with the matter but they could not confer anything but local citizenship. It was not in their power nor in the power of the government or parliament at that time to confer imperial citizenship in Canada. It was only after the conference of 1911 that the British government and representatives of the different dominions agreed as to certain qualifications that would make it possible for every dominion to confer citizenship and naturalization that would obtain throughout the empire and that would be recognized throughout the world as British citizenship.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is any time limit
prescribed in this measure? I notice that all the provisions are repealed. Is there any provision for posting applications in the office of the clerk of the court or anywhere else?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Perhaps my hon. friend
will bear with me and I will gradually come to all these matters. 1 am now endeavouring to explain why we are repealing these sections and in due course I will explain what will take place if the house consents to their repeal.


Mr. KAISER:: In what way would we
differ from Australia? I can see the great difference between naturalization in England and in Canada. We are a country receiving vast numbers of immigrants whereas in the older countries such a condition does not exist, and we might therefore have to resort to different methods from those employed in the older countries.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It had been my desire
that we should go into committee at once. This would have permitted replies to all these specific questions, but I understand the leader of the opposition because he objects to the principle of the bill or for some other reason, insisted that we should have a discussion on the second reading. Of course my hon. friends will understand that, speaking on the second reading of the bill, I am not in a position to deal with all these points which can be elucidated when we reach the committee stage. But I may tell my hon. friend, as regards the point which he has just raised, that the situation is this. Every dominion retains the control of its local regulations, but

Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinjret
there are certain requirements for British citizenship which are being recognized everywhere. As regards the discretion of the Secretary of State in granting certificates, I have just said that this Dominion is the only one where this is prefaced by a reference to the court. In all the other dominions the Secretary of State has the fullest discretion as to granting certificates. That is the case in Australia, South Africa, and so on.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is it not true that the
authority still remains with the Secretary of State? All the courts do is to inquire into the fitness of the candidate for citizenship. They hear the evidence in order to find out whether the man is a fit and proper person to receive the citizenship of this country. Having established the proof in that regard, the judge makes a finding and then the Secretary of State still exercises his right to grant or to refuse a certificate. I think that is the practice.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is the very point
I am going to argue. At present if the court refuses to recommend a certificate, the Secretary of State may not, and according to the interpretation of the act, shall not grant a certificate. He has no discretion when the court refuses to recommend the granting of a certificate.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. member
think the Secretary of State, who has not seen nor heard the applicant, should have power to grant the certificate?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my horn, friend will bear with me, that is the whole purpose of the bill, I will endeavour to explain why that discretion should be given to the Secretary of State. The purpose of these amendments is to make it easier for applicants to obtain naturalization papers. I want to explain what I mean by the word "easier". By that I do not mean for one moment that the requirements will foe any less exacting, or that the qualifications will foe lowered in any way, but we want to establish a procedure whereby every applicant can more easily show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State and of the government that he possesses the necessary qualifications. It is represented that the present system places difficulties of every kind in the way of applicants. Courts sit at very infrequent intervals, and sometimes at long distances from where the applicants reside, and it makes it very hard for some of them to appear personally before the court, or to be properly represented, which can only be the case under certain circumstances. It

discourages applications for naturalization in a great many instances. I know that every western member -of this parliament, and even some members from the province of Quebec, in parts remote from the big centres, will vouch for what I am saying. That is one of the objections that was raised when this bill was before this house on a previous occasion. I wish to repeat that it is not for one moment intended to make it any easier to obtain a naturalization certificate in the sense that the applicant will not be required to have as firm and strong qualifications, but rather we want to make it easier for every desirable applicant properly to establish his right to a naturalization certificate, which is a very different thing.
We also want to simplify the legal processes; we want to bring about uniformity in administration. At present the requirements for obtaining a certificate, which are to be found in section 4 of the revised statute, are as follows:
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,
(cl 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.
I point out at once that certain of these qualifications are of such a nature that they may easily be established, provided that the applicant is acting in good faith. As to whether the applicant has resided for five years within the British Empire, or has resided one year in Canada as required by the act, it is quite immaterial whether that foe established before a tribunal or before the department, but when it comes to paragraph (b), to ascertaining whether he is of good character and has an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language, that is very much a matter of appreciation, a matter of policy, I should say, rather than a matter of law. I submit that there is nothing in the act to help any judge to decide what is the exact meaning of that provision, "that he is of good character," and is a fit subject for naturalization, and it is therefore very much a matter of policy either for this parliament to pronounce upon, or for this government to take the responsibility for, just as in the same manner it belongs to parliament and to the government to decide whether or not an

Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinjret
alien is a fit subject to be accepted as an immigrant. That is exactly why we desire to repeal these clauses under which it is provided that an applicant must refer his case to the courts. We have had ample proof during the experimental working of this act that there are not, perhaps, two judges in this country who interpret the act in the same way. They have their own opinion as to naturalization; they have their own feeling as to what constitutes a fit subject for naturalization; they have their own appreciation of what constitutes an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language. So that we have a system under which you may be granted a certificate of naturalization in a certain part of the country, and be met with a very different reception if you apply for it somewhere else. That, I submit is a most undesirable situation.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: What steps would the Secretary of State take in order to satisfy himself that the applicant was a fit subject for naturalization? Would he set up a tribune of his own?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is exactly what I am trying to explain. Rather than leave it to the different judges of the country to give to this act an interpretation which is not uniform, but which is flexible and varies according to the temperament and judgment of the judge, it is desirable that the process of naturalization in this country should issue from one source, that source being the Secretary of State, representing the government of Canada, and responsible to the parliament of Canada. My argument is that the determination of the qualifications for British citizenship in this country is not a matter that should be scattered to the four winds, but rather that it should issue from the one source.
If the house will turn to subsection 3 of section 4, they will find that in 1914 it had been intended to give to the Secretary of State the absolute discretion which we now ask for. Subsection 3, which in my opinion and in the opinion of the department and of a number of legal authorities contains the basic principle of the Naturalization Act as we have it today, reads as follows:
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.
Such was the clause which was proposed in 1914, and which was adopted by this house after a considerable discussion. But is it not
evident, and is it not according to what took place in other parts of the empire, that it was the purpose of the bill and the intention of the government of the day, and of parliament which approved the bill, to grant to the Secretary of State the fullest discretion in the matter of naturalization? Look again at the section, which says that it "shall be in the absolute discretion of the minister, and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision." That is the clause to which this parliament assented in 1914.
It is true that the same bill did retain the reference to the courts which had existed previously, but if you turn to the explanation of the bill which was given by the Hon. Mr. Doherty, then Minister of Justice, which you will find at page 3250 of volume IV of Hansard of the session of 1914, you will find that he explained it thus:
Perhaps it will be well to point out some of the material differences between the requirements of our existing law and the requirements of this bill. The period of residence differs in term, and differs also with regard to the place in which it must have been passed. The requirement as regards the period of time is that it shall be five years, but that it is sufficient that the last of the five years shall have been passed within the Dominion of Canada. provided the other four years were passed within the British posessions. There are requirements of adequate knowledge of the languages official in the country; in Canada the French and the English languages. The certificates under this legislation are to be issued by the Secretary of State. They are not to emanate directly from the court, but under the sections, which deal with the procedure there, the courts are to be resorted to for the purpose of establishing before them compliance with the essential conditions.
Is it not plain from this explanation that the government was under the impression, and so advised parliament, that the only course the courts could take after the passing of the bill would be to ascertain as to whether there had been essential compliance with those specific requirements, which were mere facts and could be just as well established before the courts as before the department? But as I pointed out a moment ago, that is not what has happened, and the practice of submitting the matter to the courts has not resulted in that unanimity of procedure which should prevail in so important a matter; in short, applicants for naturalization are not treated alike, the practice varying in the different courts. This in my opinion is the main reason why we should amend the act as I have suggested.

Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinjret
I have touched also on the point of simplifying the procedure and making it easier for people to submit their applications for naturalization. Every non. member conversant with conditions obtaining in large sections of the country knows very well that it is difficult, if not almost, impossible, for many applicants either to reach the court or to submit their applications, with the result that undue and undesirable delays occur. In the time at my disposal it would be impossible for me to give in detail the variety of rules obtaining in the courts to which I have just referred, but, as I have said, anyone may go to the department and peruse the files, which reveal the most astounding discrepancies, discrepancies which in some instances confer citizenship cn those not qualified to receive it, and in other cases impose very unfair restrictions on deserving applicants.
One of the most serious grievances in so far as the courts are concerned is that the applicant is compelled to travel long distances, entailing absence from home for one or two days at considerable expense, and quite frequently after going to all this expense and trouble he finds that the court has been postponed or that the naturalization cases have been traversed to the next sitting. This may seem unimportant, but it has the undesirable effect of discouraging applicants to take out naturalization papers. I think it will be generally agreed that when a man has passed the various immigration tests and has fulfilled the requirements of the act as to residence, character and knowledge of one of the official languages, we should make the certificate of naturalization available to him at the least expense and with the least difficulty.
Perhaps I may give a few examples from the extensive file that I have under my hand in order that hon. members may be advised of the discrepancies which I have mentioned. It is represented to the department that many applicants residing at great distances from courts complain of having to go several times to these courts, thus being put to considerable expense. This complaint is very general from all parts of the country, and I have already referred to it. It is also pointed out that owing to the rare visits of the judge in some districts applications have to wait many months before being heard, and on that account applicants are often called to appear at very inopportune times when they are busy at home with the harvest, trapping, or other occupations. Frequently their applications are rejected when they are unable to attend for these reasons, and they are obliged to begin
lMr. Rinfret.]
anew their application at additional expense. This discourages them and some do not proceed further. It is also pointed out that if a judge cannot attend as expected or advertised at the place where application is to be made, applicants are required to travel long distances with their witnesses to meet the judge and have their applications heard at another point rather than wait a year. Through the incompetence of some clerks applications which should not be received are accepted, and finally rejected by the courts or the Secretary of State. Applicants thereby incur expense which would have been avoided had they been properly advised in the first instance. In a number of cases applications are lost and considerable delay results.	[DOT]
As regards the interpretation of the act, I could quote a number of cases, but perhaps it will suffice if I read a memorandum received from the Hon. R. M. Meredith, Chief Justice of the high court division of the supreme court of Ontario, which presents the case in a very convincing way. This document in itself has much intrinsic value, but it has also behind it the very great prestige and authority of a judge who has on very many occasions pronounced himself in regard to naturalization cases, and -who is a perfectly competent authority to speak about the present system. Even if so far my speech had failed to convince the house, I have no doubt this memorandum will do better than I have been able to do myself. Here is what he says:
In the matter of five applications for naturalization under the provisions of the Naturalization Act, 1914.
That which seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory state of the law and practice respecting the naturalization, in Canada, of aliens, impels me to say these things in dealing with and disposing of these applications, which were made at the last Halton autumn assizes;
The act, which is now chapter 138 of the revised statutes of Canada, confers on the Secretary of State the powers and the duty to grant or refuse a certificate of naturalization, upon an application to him-section 4- and after an application to the judge, court, authority or person mentioned in section 22

section 27.
On application to the secretary, naturalization .may be granted on proof of the statutory requirements set but in section 4; namely five years' residence, good character and "an adequate knowledge of either the English or French languages"-the plural number of this word being obviously a clerical mistake for the singular-and intention "to reside in His Majesty's dominions or enter or continue in the service of the crown".
The judges, courts and authorities or persons mentioned in section 22 have now no power to grant naturalization. They have the power and duty to hear and adjudicate upon applications for naturalization conferred on them; but their decision in favour of applicants may in

Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinlret
the "absolute discretion" of the Secretary of State be in effect overruled in a refusal to issue a certificate of naturalization.
Whilst, on the other hand there does not appear to be anything in the way of an overruling in effect by him of a judges or court's decision against an applicant by the simple process of granting another application to him directly under section 4. Nor does there seem to be anything to prevent an applicant, whose application has failed when made to_ a judge or court or authority or person, applying again and again to other judges, courts, authorities or persons; subsection 2 of section 2 of the act does not seem, directly or indirectly, to create a local jurisdiction.
One of the first substantial difficulties met with in the administration of the act is this: judges, courts, etc. must decide "that the alien is a fit and proper person to be naturalized and possesses the proper qualifications" before they can find in favour of applicants: sections 22 and 26: whilst upon an application to the secretary under section 4 all that is required is that the application satisfy him that he has the statutory qualifications which I have before mentioned. But the "absolute discretion'' of the secretary under section 4 subsection 3 gives him the fullest power to refuse any application to him.
So that it is manifest that on every application, such as those I am dealing with, I must find that the applicant not only possesses the required qualification-which I take to mean those set out in section 4-but also is a fit and proper person to be naturalized.
Who is a fit and proper person to be naturalized? Nothing in the act gives any answer to this question. It is not a question of law, nor one of mere eommonsense; it is really a question of policy of the country in which naturalization is sought: and as this Dominion has pqt the matter so completely in the discretion of its secretary of state; sections 4 and 27 of the act, it seemed to me both natural and proper to look to him for knowledge: but so far that looking by me has been in vain. Nor can I find anything that has been said or done by any other judge or any court, authority or person throwing light on the subject, helpful to me. Then unaided in those ways, what am I to decide on the question whether these applicants are "fit and proper persons" to be naturalized under the act, assuming that they possess, as they may, "the required qualifications'' expressed in the act? They are all illiterate, illiterate in the language of their native land, and much more in the language of this province or either of the languages of the Dominion. Nearly all of them work in gangs of men, of their own native language, in brick yards or in other similar employments and generally live in buildings of their employer used in connection with and near to the work in which they are employed; but nothing has been said or discovered against their characters as men in such a condition in life. In early days in this country they would gladly have been naturalized here; as also in the United States of America doubtless, the paramount desire, if not the only one, being, then, to increase the population. But changed times have greatly changed needs and desires in this respect in the United States of America, and here too in a lesser degree, but yet a great change and one much affected too by the experiences and the effect of the most recent great war.
To reach a right conclusion upon this question, it is necessary to bear in mind always the effect of naturalization such as that sought: beside 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 lawmakers 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. It may be said that "deportation" after-five years residence in Canada, or its equivalent, could not be effected; but cases of which I have knowledge show that even fourteen years is not considered a bar by some who exercise the power to deport.
If I acted upon my own views as to what aliens are fit and proper persons to be made British subjects. I should decide against all of the applicants, deeming that the least illiterate of them is not yet qualified.	_
But for two reasons my decision is to be the other way:
1.	Because I have no doubt that a great majority of the hundreds of persons, clothed with the same authority which I am exercising, would so decide in like cases that come before them. As far as T have been able to discover, the general practice seems to be to decide in favour of the applicant when his papers show compliance with the expressed qualifications provided for in the act. And it is of the utmost importance that the law should be administered evenly: that the country should not be open to the reproach: Your laws are uneven.
2.	And because, if the decision were against the applicants, that would probably end the matter, though it should not, for they might make another application, to the secretary direct or to some other judge or court or authority or person having power under the act.
Deciding, as I do, and giving, as I am. my reason for such decision, and making it, in so far as I can, part of that decision, it puts upon the secretary the necessity of either issuing, or refusing to issue, certificates of naturalization, and to that extent disclosing a policy applicable to such applications: and so it may prove to be a step at least towards uniformity in the administration of the law of naturalization in Canada.
This is a long document, Mr. Speaker, but I consider it most interesting and convincing. Chief Justice Meredith, in this statement, is practically recommending himself the very thing we want to achieve by amending the act as we now propose. He has seen the situation very clearly; if the idea which prevailed in 1914 were followed out, it should rest with the court merely to see that the applicant complies with requirements of the law which are facts. As Mr. Justice Meredith puts it, at present the judges also decide as to who is a fit person for naturalization, as to what degree a man seeking naturalization should possess a knowledge of either French,

Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinfret
or English, and as to the character of the applicant. As the learned judge points out, this is not a matter of law; the judge cannot find in the law any enlightenment upon these points; and he cannot receive any help even by applying to the department. He must resort to his own opinions and feelings, and desiring uniformity in the interpretation of the act the judge has decided, without regard to what he thinks about it as an individual, to leave the decisions to the Secretary of State.
That is the decision at which this most learned judge of a very high court in Ontario has arrived. He has not waited for parliament to amend the law as we propose to do; he has done his own amending as to his pronouncements in the granting of naturalization. He has taken the stand that it is not a matter of law so much as a matter of policy, realizing that judges all over the country will decide these points according to their own inclinations. He has declared that so far as he is concerned he is not going to resist any more applications of that kind, in order that they may reach the Secretary of State for decision. I think this is a most important document, and I am quite willing to stand by it in presenting this bill to the house
My hon. friends have put questions as to what will take place if these sections are repealed. I may say that inasmuch as after the court has rendered its decision the Secretary of State still has the discretion to either refuse or grant the certificate, right along we have been conducting our own inquiries in each of the cases presented to the courts. Every one of these cases is now investigated by the department by various methods, either through inquiries made by the mounted police, through arrangements which we have made with homestead inspectors, the records of the immigration department or in other ways at our disposal. This is done in order that we may satisfy ourselves as to the qualifications of the applicants. If this act passed it would simply mean that the applicant would fill out a form, which is quite extensive and covers the whole field of investigation. This form, which is made under oath, is sent to the department, but at present we cannot act upon that application for at least three months, waiting for the decision of the court. If this bill passes the Department of State will be in a position to deal with every case as it comes along and to give every case that degree of attention which it does require in order to make sure of the requirements of the different applicants.
Then there is another feature of the bill, although perhaps this is not quite so 
important: if this amendment carries it will give the state quite an important revenue. At present every applicant must pay $5 before filing his papers, but that is paid to the clerk of the court and only in important centres such as Toronto and Montreal, where the revenues of the clerk exceed $2,000, is any return made to the Department of State. In other cases the amount paid goes to the clerk of the court as a fee for the performance of his work, and this branch of the public service, although it exacts quite a substantial sum of money from such applicants, brings practically no revenue at all to the department. We estimate that if the applications were sent direct, the revenues of the branch probably would cover the cost of the administration and would amount to over $50,000 a year.
I do not know that I should deal with the matter at greater length now. I realize that I have spoken at considerable length. However, I should like to sum up my remarks thus: I claim that the absolute power of granting these certificates should rest with the government through the Secretary of State, and that this is the basic principle of our own act. This is the system followed in Great Britain and in every British dominion. AVhen an immigrant has entered this country according to the regulations of the Department of Immigration and has resided in Canada legally and peacefully for five years, or for one year in Canada and four years in the British Empire, he should be granted a certificate. Uniformity in decision and a greater facility in procedure should be allowed to any such person desiring to become a British citizen. Naturalization is primarily a matter of policy which should rest with the government, and the department would derive an important revenue from the change.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the attention of the house and feel assured that it will receive the approval of parliament.


Robert James 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?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There would be no definite time; that would rest with the department.


Robert James Manion: It could be done immediately?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. I thank my hon. friend for this question, because in a certain number of cases it has proven a great ineon-

Naturalization Act-Sir George Perley
venience 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.


George Halsey Perley: The minister has made a long explanation of this bill, but I regret to say that he has not brought conviction to my mind. For years this question of naturalization has been a difficult one in this country. Before this last act of 1914, naturalization as granted in Canada carried force in Canada only. Any person naturalized in Canada was no longer a British subject legally when he left this country. That was a condition of affairs that was not satisfactory to anybody, and there was a great deal of agitation about it for a long term of years, as the hon. gentleman will remember. I heard it discussed in this house a good many times. At the imperial conference the matter was brought up from time to time when all the representatives of the dominions were there with those of the mother country, and finally, after a great deal of discussion, they all agreed on a bill of this kind, which if passed by the different dominions and accepted by them would enable the dominions to grant British naturalization which would carry the world over. That was accepted by Canada, and this act of 1914 was passed for that purpose.
To my mind this British naturalization is a very valuable privilege for anybody to have. It carries with it the right to protection all over the world as a British citizen, and it is something that ought not to be lightly given. It is true that the minister ' has the final say in regard to granting these certificates, but he has stated that he wants to follow the practice in Britain. How can anybody compare the situation in Great Britain in this regard with the situation in Canada? Great Britain is a small country, comparatively easy of access in all its parts; distances are not great. Canada is spread over this whole continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Somebody in authority must see these applicants individually and personally, in order to determine whether they are fit and proper persons to become naturalized British subjects. It cannot be done by correspondence. It cannot be done by writing to homestead inspectors. It has to be done by someone of real authority, a person who is used to judging character. to judging men; before them these applicants must appear in order that we may be sure that they are fit and proper persons to be naturalized. I quite admit what the 56103-161
minister says about differences of opinion, perhaps, as to exactly what is necessary in order that a person may be regarded as a fit and proper person to be naturalized, but he cannot possibly administer this question in the way that he proposes unless he surrounds himself with a bodyguard of men who can go out into the country and see these applicants; and the men he would have to use for that purpose must be well educated men, men who would command large salaries.
The minister when he was speaking seemed to have it in his mind that perhaps these sections regarding the necessity of going before a judge were not in the act of 1914, and then he said that some of them were. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me correctly, in the act of 1914 it was provided that the applicant should go to a judge or to a court.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If the hon, member will allow me, I did not intend to give the impression that these clauses were not in the act of 1914. What I tried to express was the fact that these clauses were not fully appreciated, as experience has shown.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so, but they have been in there since we had the power to give complete British naturalization; they were not put in afterwards. In the original act. under which we had the power to naturalize British subjects all over the world, these clauses' appeared and they have been there ever since. I take the point most strongly that every applicant must appear personally before someone in authority, otherwise it is utterly impossible to say whether or not an applicant should be naturalized. I would ask the minister, before whom should an applicant more properly come than before a judge? True, there may be cases in which it is difficult for the man personally to appear before the judge, but section 25 gives the judge discretion. It says that the applicant shall personally appear before the court for examination unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that he is prevented from so appearing by some good and sufficient cause. In other words, if the judge has evidence from reputable people which satisfies him that this man is for some good reason unable to attend, the judge may go through the evidence and make his report without the man personally appearing. But I feel sure that except in cases' of that kind where the judge thinks it is not necessary, it is absolutely imperative that the applicant should appear personally before someone in authority.
The minister has said that the department carry on investigation themselves. He does

2540	COMMONS
Naturalization Act-Sir George Perley
not mean, I take it, that they do that in all cases. I should be very much astonished to hear that the Department of the Secretary of State did not accept, in almost all cases, the report made by the judge. The judge sees the man personally and talks to him; in the first place he finds out whether the applicant has an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language. That is of course a basic necessity; no man can become a naturalized British subject unless he has a knowledge of either English or French. That is in the statute, and even if the minister persuades parliament to repeal these other sections, that one will remain. I would ask the minister, is it possible for him to obtain this information by correspondence? The minister says that in some cases he takes the matter up through a member of the mounted police or one of the homestead inspectors. Now, as far as I am concerned, I object most decidedly to an important question of this kind being settled by homestead inspectors. Some of whom would be all right, but many of them are not fitted to decide the questions involved in the granting to these people of British citizenship which is available to them all over the world.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I suppose my hon. friend realizes that the very basis of the application is the affidavit of the applicant himself.


George Halsey Perley: He has to appear in person. We have known cases where a false affidavit has been made.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then we can revoke the
certificate.


George Halsey Perley: Quite so, but in
that case it is far better that it should never have been granted. If the applicant appears in person before the judge, nothing of that kind will happen. The personal equation cannot be overlooked. We all know a judge can readily decide about a man's character and fitness to become a British subject by meeting him, talking with him face to face and asking him all the questions he desires. The judges all approach this matter with the feeling that they will grant the certificate if at all possible.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish they did.


George Halsey Perley: They all approach it with the idea that if the application is in order they will send in a favourable report to the Secretary of State. It is impossible to imagine that any of our judges would deal with any of these applications in any other way, and the minister still retains authority to refuse them.
fSir George Perley.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did the hon.
member not hear the memorandum from Mr. Justice Meredith that was just read? He said he thought they should all be disfranchised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because they did not
understand either English or French, and the statute says that they should.


George Halsey Perley: The statute states that no man can be naturalized unless he has an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language.


Charles Avery Dunning: What does that mean?


George Halsey Perley: If I were sitting as a judge to listen to these men I would very quickly make up my mind as to what I thought was an adequate knowledge of French or English for that purpose.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Could my hon. friend
make up his mind as Secretary of State? He has filled that position.


George Halsey Perley: Assuredly.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That would be only one
mind, not a thousand.


George Halsey Perley: Unfortunately
the Secretary of State is not the man who will make up his mind in regard to it, even if this measure passes. Has he so little to do that he can go and see all these applicants himself? If he does that, we shall not object to the measure; but he is going to allow his mind to be made up for him by somebody else. As I said before he will have to have a large staff and he must have somebody w'ho will go out and interview each one of these men separately. So that when the minister asks me if, as secretary of state, I could make up my mind on the point better than anybody else, I would say to him: Yes, if the man were here and I were talking to him I should be quite willing to deal with. the question myself. But the minister cannot do that; the minister will have placed before him a pile of papers with the name of the applicant, and some of his officials will have recommended the application or said that the certificate should not be granted. How many times will the Secretary of State delve into the whole question himself independently of his officials? I question very much whether he will find time to deal with any of them in that way.
The minister has said that one of the weighty reasons why these sections should be repealed is because applications go astray and that delay is occasioned in consequence. May I ask the minister whether it is not just as

Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
likely that an application sent to Ottawa would go astray as an application sent to me of the judges? I cannot see that the Postmaster General would not take the same precautions to have mail delivered to judges as he would to have mail delivered to the Secretary of State. I admit there will he cases wdiero there is delay, with consequent disappointment to the applicant; but that cannot happen very often now, and even if these sections are repealed it will still happen occasionally.
The Prime Minister has asked me about the memorandum from Mr. Justice Meredith. I am not a lawyer, and I am going to leave it to one of the lawyers in the house to comment, on the memorandum and to answer it. It seems to me it is just as much in favour of the present act as it is in favour of the intention of my hon. friend But I will not go into the question myself. There are some things about the present act that I like very much. In the first place section 23 reads:
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.
The delay is very necessary in order that everybody may know that the man has made an application for naturalization. I remember a case where people objected to a man being naturalized, and unless a notice was posted up and an opportunity given to people interested to object, how is it possible to put into effect section 24, which reads:
At any time after the filing of any 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.
Does the minister think that is not a salutary clause? Surely the neighbours, the people who know the man well, are able to judge whether he should properly be naturalized or not, and if there is any feeling amongst the people in the community who know him that he should not be naturalized, an opportunity should be given to them to appear before the judge and to state their reasons.
The minister says that if these sections are repealed the department will make a good deal of revenue. I fancy that the clerks of the courts need the revenue they get for this service more than my hon. friend's department, Moreover. I take issue with him as to the revenue being sufficient to provide the expenses of administration; if his proposed bill becomes law. I predict that he will have to 56103-1611
insert in the estimates an item to carry on this work. That is to say-and I come back to what I started with-he will have to increase his staff; there will have to be provision in the estimates for more assistance and more expenses for people going about this country to interview these men, unless he intends to act on the correspondence he receives and not to have anybody interview them personally. If he does not have them interviewed personally he will make many mistakes and many people will be naturalized in this country who ought not to be.
I feel strongly that British naturalization, good throughout the world, is a most valuable privilege and should be hedged around with all reasonable precautions to ensure that certificates are not granted to undesirable people. The minister says: Oh, we have the power to revoke them. I know that, and occasionally one has to be revoked, but to revoke a certificate is a very serious step to take. It is far better that the investigation be made beforehand so that certificates will not be granted to people who will make undesirable citizens. Therefore I urge the minister to reconsider the matter. So far as I know the present act, on the whole, has worked well. There may have been a few cases where some hardship has resulted, but it is a great deal better to have delayed the naturalization papers of a few who perhaps are not entitled to naturalization than to have a, lot of people naturalized who ought never to be naturalized.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division; bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon. Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Application to count and issue of certificate.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly was my intention to speak on the second reading of this measure. The objection to it. is an objection in principle, and, particularly in view of the fact that the bill contains only one section, it should have been far better to divide the house on the second reading. It is true that the opportunity will be afforded to us on the third reading; we can move the six months' hoist 'then as readily as we could have moved an amendment on the second reading. There was no such urgent necessity as seemed to be apparent of declaring the second reading carried, when some of us had made up our minds to speak on the motion for the second reading; however, that is not a matter of very great importance.
Naturalization with some people in Canada has been treated as a joke. I can recall my early days in western Canada, before the
2542	COMMONS
Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
statute was amended, when it was only necessary to made a declaration before a justice of the peace or a commissioner for taking affidavits, and a long line of people would gather before the court. Sometimes only the certificate would be read, and then naturalization would be granted upon the payment of a fee of $2. Under these conditions naturalization became a sort of by-word and reproach. Men were gotten together in a political hall on a given night, they took the declaration and signed the papers; the papers were put before a judge, and times without number it has been discovered that the affidavits were false and the declarations wholly erroneous.
In 1914, following the imperial conference of 1911, the British parliament passed a statute with respect to naturalization. It was a matter that had engaged the attention of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for many years, and if those who are anxious to pursue the history of the subject will read what was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on many occasions, they will ascertain why. Up until 1914, when this parliament passed the present Naturalization AcL it was possible to confer Canadian citizenship only upon those who were naturalized. That Canadian citizenship ceased when the person to whom it was granted passed beyond the three mile limit and was no longer within the territorial jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. It was that objection, of course, that was urged by the Americans who came to settle here. It was said that they had lost their own citizenship; they passed out of the three mile limit, and then the question was, what citizenship did they possess? It was contended by some that their American citizenship was renewed.
Then you had the immigrant that came to us from Europe. He came from communities where they had compulsory military service, and I recall many of the difficulties that arose, after the war broke out, in connection with that particular matter. Under the laws of some of the kingdoms of Europe it is provided that notwithstanding the fact that its nationals may obtain naturalization under such conditions as it was granted in this country prior to 1914, they still were within the reach of the army of the country whence they came. The result was that some who went from this country the possessors of Canadian naturalization certificates found themselves, as soon as they arrived in the land whence they originally came, subject to compulsory military service and compelled to undergo training as required by the law of that country.	_
This matter, of course, engaged the attention of our statesmen for a. number of years. It was the subject of much discussion at many

imperial conferences, and finally in 1911 it was decided at the conference that the subject matter should be dealt with in a manner that would permit any person who was naturalized in any one of the king's dominions to obtain thereby naturalization throughout the British Empire; in other words, he became a British subject throughout the world. He was no longer a Canadian citizen. He obtained all the rights, all the privileges, all the claims, if he were naturalized in Canada, as though he were born within the sound of Bow Bells. There was no distinction between the two. That was a very, very great advance. It carried with it enormous obligations on the part of the British government; for while we were obtaining all the benefits, we were at the time providing no machinery for the protection of the citizen. Our flag did not carry protection upon the high seas. Nothing of that sort, so far as we were concerned, was being put forward. It therefore became essential that an agreement be arrived at whereby the mother statute-if I might use a term which, while not very elegant, adequately expresses the meaning-should be passed by the British parliament, and that the parliaments of the self-governing dominions would pass a statute practically similar in terms, so far as essentials were concerned, but varying in the regulations by which naturaliazation was made effective. The parliament of Great Britain therefore passed in 1914 the statute which I have under my hand.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Young (Saskatoon), seconded by Mr. McLean (Melfort), the following bills were read the first and second
times, on division:
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Annie Pearl Appel.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Dorothy Catalina Day Armstrong.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Louise Morris Hays Grier.
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Thelma Katherine Halliday.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Marion Jarvis
Lewis.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Annie Moore -Mr. Casselman.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Naturalization Act-Mr. Bennett
Tuesday, May 1, 1928