1928-05-02

[Stage Direction]
Second report of select standing com mittee on standing orders.-Mr. Morin (St Hyacinthe).


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That notwithstanding section 2 of standing order 6. on and after May 2nd, the house shall sit at eight o'clock, on Wednesday evenings and that on the first two Wednesday evenings the house is in session, private bills shall have precedence over all other business until disposed of.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: I greatly regret that I cannot agree to this motion, although I suppose that is not of very much importance. Quite a number of members not only on this but on the other side of the house, in view of the fact that notice was not given until after the beginning of the week, made engagements for this evening of a long-standing character, one of which was to pay honour and tribute to that distinguished colleague of the Prime Minister who attaches to his name the title of Minister of Labour. That is my recollection of the circumstances, and in view of these facts I think the Prime Minister should substitute the word "nine" for the word "two" in this motion. I know he is anxious to dispose of public business; we are in the same position, but in view of the circumstances which I have mentioned I trust he may be induced to let this motion go until next Wednesday evening.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think my
hon. friend's request is quite reasonable, and with the consent of the house I will be very happy to have the motion read "Wednesday, May 9" instead of "Wednesday, May 2."


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Has the right hon. Prime Minister considered placing some part of these Wednesday evenings, should private bills be disposed of, at the disposal of the house to take up public bills and orders?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will follow right on if we get through private bills.


George Reginald Geary: That is understood?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, for the
first two Wednesday evenings.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: On Monday last I moved that
the report and the correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of the United States with respect to the Chicago diversion be printed, but when questioned as to whether that included all the exchanges, I was unable to answer definitely. I have inquired since, and find that that motion did not include all the exchanges. I would therefore move the following motion to amend the motion I then made:
That 500 copies in English and 250 copies in French of that portion of the return tabled on April 19. 1928, respecting the diversion of water at Chicago, which includes the interchange of notes between the governments of Canada and the United States, be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. CAHAN:: May I ask what is included in this present motion? For instance, the earlier documents brought down have been printed, but they are not available; it is impossible to obtain copies of them although I have applied to the printing bureau and to the distribution office.


Charles A. Stewart: This covers the reprint of all those documents, so we will have everything together.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved:: That Bill No. 57, an act respecting the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company, placed on the order paper for consideration from 8 to 9 p.m. on Friday, the fourth day of May, 1928, be given precedence over other bills.
I gave the explanation of this motion some days ago, and do not think it is necessary to go into the matter further at present.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: This motion will require unanimous consent of the house, and I object to it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I believe unanimous
consent is not required for this motion.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: That is so.
What is the pleasure of the house?

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway



CANADIAN NATIONAL SILVER FOX BREEDERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Has the Minister of Agriculture approved of an amendment to the constitution of an association called Canadian National Silver Fox Breeders Association closing that association's register on January 15, 1926, against all male silver foxes including thoroughbreds born in Canada except those the sire and dam of which are registered in the Canadian national record for foxes?
2.	Has the attention of the Minister of Agriculture been called to the fact that prior to the closing of such register, application to register thoroughbred silver foxes in Yukon had been received by Canadian national live stock records and such application was shut out by the closing of the register?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes, the stud book of the Canadian National Silver Fox Breeders Association closed on Januajry 15, 1926, as far as foundation stock is concerned. After that date all foxes registered have to be by registered parents except in the case of a wild silver female accepted under inspection for grading up purposes.
2.	Yes. This matter was brought to the attention of the department by Mr. George Black, M.P. (Yukon). A tentative arrangement was made for an officer to be sent to the Yukon to look over these foxes and register those, if any, that were up to a certain standard and whose breeding could be traced.
Questions

An effort was made to secure the services of an inspector to go there, but the job was refused by certain inspectors, and although one inspector finally agreed to go, he asked such a, high rate of pay that the department considered it would not be justified in sending him at that time. Since then, as fox inspection has passed out of the hands of the department and been taken over by the Canadian National Silver Fox Breeders Association, no further action has been taken in the matter.



LAPSED INSURANCE POLICIES

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What amount of life insurance during the past three years has been confiscated by insurance companies under the control of this government on account of lapsed policies?
2.	Is any return made to the Finance department thereof or the superintendent of insurance?
3.	What percentage of insurance written in each year lapses?


Mr. ROBB:: 
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: 1.	What office or appointment does William Urquhart of West Bay or Dundee, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, hold in the Department of National Revenue?
2.	What is his age?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	What is the amount of his annual salary?
5.	What are his duties?
6.	Is he assigned to any special territory? If so. what territory?
7.	How many seizures has he made, and what was the quantity and value of liquor seized in each instance?
8.	What is the total amount of fines collected through his seizures?
9.	Is he regarded by the department as an active, zealous and energetic officer?
10.	On whose recommendation was he appointed to his present position?
(Mr. Motherwell.]


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Nil.
2.	Forty.
3.	Appointed June 1, 1927. Services terminated October 12, 1927.
4.	$100 per month while in the service.
5.	Enforcement of customs and excise laws while in the service.
6.	Stationed at West Bay. N.S., and patrolled the district in the immediate vicinity while in the service.
7 and 8. 4.	66J gallons rum, duty paid
value, $1,030.46-liquor forfeited and destroyed-fine $325.
One automobile-appraised value $300- goods forfeited-sold-proceeds of sale. S65. _
Two bottles of whiskey-duty paid value, $2.50

liquor forfeited and destroyed.
21 flasks of rum-appraised value SI-liquor on hand pending prosecution.
9 and 10. Answered by No. 1.



OTTAWA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

Mr. WILSON (Wentworth):: 1.	What offices were occupied by the Ottawa Improvement Commission during the year 1926 and a portion of 1927, and what rental was paid for the said offices?
2.	Who were the owners of the said offices so occupied?
3.	Did the commission move its offices during the year 1927?
4.	Where are the present offices located?
5.	What is the rental of the present offices?
6.	Are the present offices held under lease? If so, what is the term of the said lease?
7.	Who are the owners of the building in which the present offices are located?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Fraser building, 53 Queen street; $800 a year.
2.	Fraser & Company.
3.	Yes, in order to secure more adequate accommodation. '
4.	Ottawa Electric building, 56 Sparks St.
5.	$2,950 a year.
6.	Yes; five years.
7.	Ottawa Electric Company.



JERSEY COVE WHARF

Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	Who was foreman in charge of the building of the wharf at Jersey Cove, Victoria county, Cape Breton?
2.	What are the names of those hired to work on this construction and the respective amounts paid each person?
3.	What are the names of persons or firms supnlying material and the amount paid in each cae?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Daniel Montgomery.
2.
Daniel Montgomery	$ 477 00
A. D. Nicholson	
61	05K. N. Buchanan	
329	25Harry Montgomery	
167	03John N. Maclnnis	
41	85George Whitfield	
66	82Murdock Campbell	
249	08Peter Maclnnes	
108	38Murdock Maclnnes	
4	50Mrs. Sarah Buchanan	
6	00Alex. Nicholson	
184	28Dan Carmichael	
13	50Dan MacAulay	
79	65John Montgomery	
58	05John Maclnnis	
32	40Norman Maclnnis	
68	18Roger Edge	
18	90Norman MacRitchie	
53	33William Brewer	
50	63Jim Munroe	
54	00Allan MacLean	
8	25Murdock MacDonald	
8	10Kenneth MacAskill	
28	00N. L. Munroe	
8	10
3.
Frank A. Bill & Son, Ltd	
$	9	30C. P. Moore, Ltd	
7	75John A. MacAskill	
39	56Thompson & Sutherland	45	75R. Musgrave & Sons, Ltd	
109	26Donnie MacDonald	
40	56Alex. Nicholson	107 99Murdock A. MacDonald	
157	12Layton's Lumber Yards	86	32A. D. Nicholson	
18	56



UNCLAIMED BANK BALANCES

Mr. SPENCER:: Referring to the answer respecting unclaimed bank balances on Hansard, page 1559, what part of the amount of $2,756,745.83, being unclaimed balances in the banks of the Dominion of Canada as at the 31st December, 1927, was on savings deposits?


Mr. ROBB:: No information. This data is not furnished under the returns required by the Bank Act.



HUDSON BAY SUPPLIES

Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What was the total expenditure at Halifax last year od the supplies for Hudson bay?
2.	What firms supplied the goods?
3.	Were the goods supplied by tender, and, if so. what are the names of firms who tendered and prices quoted by each?
Questions
4.	How many men from Halifax were engaged in construction work? Who engaged them, and on what basis?
5.	What was the total amount paid for construction and the name of the contractor?
6.	Was construction work done by tender, and, if so., what are the names of parties tendering and amount of each tender?


Mr. DUNNING:: I would appreciate it if my hon. friend would clarify this question somewhat. Earlier in the session some confusion arose through members speaking of the Hudson bay when they meant the Hudson strait and vice versa. The two places are a considerable distance apart and the Department of Marine and Fisheries is doing the navigation work in the strait, while the Department of Railways and Canals is doing the work at Churchill in the bay. I gather from my hon. friend's question that he probably wants information with respect to both separately. If he will clarify this question along that line I will see that the information, so far as my department is affected, is secured.



SUB-CHASER BAROFF

Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	When was the customs preventive subchaser Baroff built?
2.	Where was she built?
3.	In what service was the Baroff engaged before being acquired by the customs department ?
4.	From whom did the government purchase the Baroff?
5.	Where was she at the time of purchase'
6.	What amount did the government pay for
the Baroff?	.
7.	Did the seller receive the full price at time of sale or was he paid in instalments?
8.	Did the government advance any moneys before the Baroff was finally taken over?
9.	Has the Baroff made any captures since being acquired by the government?
10.	If so, what vessels and what amount of cargo was seized and of what value?
11.	Where is the Baroff operating now?
12.	How many months was she in service last, year, or since being acquired?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	1918.
2.	College Point, New York, U.S.A.
3.	No information.
4.	F. W. Dickie & Company, Limited.
5.	St. John, N.B.
6.	$37,500.
(Note.-the Baroff was completely refitted with all new machinery (3 100 H.P. Diesel engines) heating system, wireless, searchlight, galley equipment, life-boats under agreement of purchase.)
7.	Paid in instalments.
8.	Progress payments made as work proceeded in connection with the installation of new machinery and fitting out boat for patrol duty.
Questions

9.	No.
10.	Answered by No. 9.
11.	Left Halifax on April 30 for her base at Gaspe, P.Q.
(Note.-Baroff operates almost exclusively in the bay of Chaleur.)
12.	Commenced patrol duty in bay of Chaleur, August 21, 1927, and continued until freeze-up, 29th November, 1927, when she returned to Halifax to winter quarters.



REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Did the government authorize the commissioners appointed to revise the Statutes of Canada, Revised Statutes 1927, to insert in the Revised Statutes:	(a) any amendments not
enacted by parliament; (b) amendments altering the meaning and effect of statutes and not enacted by parliament?
2.	If so, by what statute, order in council, direction of minister, or other means was such authority given?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



MONTREAL PUBLIC BUILDINGS

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What buildings are rented, in whole or in part, by the Dominion government in the city of Montreal ?
2.	What rental is paid per annum in each
case ?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Rent per
Building	annum
182-186 Shearer street	$ 6,500
Chateau de Ramezay, 180 Notre Dame
street, east	 600
Bonaventure station (C.N.R.)	 144
Windsor station (C.P.R.)	 462
Place Yiger station (C.P.R.)	 246
283 Sherbrooke street, west	 2,100
50 Westminster avenue	 1,380
1023-1025 Mount Royal avenue.. ..	3,600
5623 Sherbrooke street, west	 4.000
Labelle (Northeast corner St. Catherine street, east and City Hall Ave.)	20,908
704 Saint Gabriel street	 1,500
La Sauvegarde (corner Notre Dame
and St. Vincent streets)	 600
1398 Notre Dame street, east	 1,620
Gazette, 38 St. Antoine street	 30,000
116 Letourneux street, (Maisonneuve)	900
1124-1126 Laurier avenue west (Outremont)	 2,704
No. 2 Fire Hall (corner Verdun and
Osborne avenues, Verdun)	 1,000
1215 Greene avenue (Westmount)..	1,500
Ames-Holden-McCready, corner La-gauchetiere and Inspector streets..	3.037



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, applications, telegrams, and all other documents during the past year, relating to any application for the merger of any Canadian chartered bank with any other existing Canadian, or the merger or proposed merger of any existing Canadian bank with any American hank.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all letters, orders in council, telegrams, correspondence, and all other documents between the government of Canada and (a) the government of Ontario, and (b), the government of the province of Quebec during the past year, regarding improvements of the St. Lawrence waterways from the navigation and power, or other standpoints. Also copies of all correspondence and other documents regarding the application of the Ontario government to erect a storage dam at or near Morrisburg in the province of Ontario, for power purposes.



LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS

Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For a return showing the names and addresses of all lighthouse keepers in Canada to whom medals have been awarded since January 1, 1913, stating the services for which the same were awarded.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-OFFICES

Thomas Langton Church: For a return showing the various times and (iates during the past four years of the vacation of the Canadian National railway and telegraph offices at King and Yonge streets, Toronto, and their removal to King and Toronto streets: the expenditures made on renovations at both places named herein by each said change; the amount spent on repairs each time at both places, and the loss of business to the system attending.



OTTAWA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

Mr. WILSON (Wentworth):: For a statement showing the number of meetings held by the Ottawa Improvement Commission during the years 1926, 1927, and to date in 1928 and what commissioners were present at each of the said meetings, together with a copy of the minutes of the said commission for the period.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LANDS

Thomas Langton 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.

Unopposed Motions for Papers


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, may I
point out again here that this resolution contains allegations, and I have no means of telling whether they are correct or not. Surely it is not in order to make allegations in a motion for return. I would be glad to put the matter in the usual course for answer, but I wish to point out that I am in no sense agreeing with the allegations made and I question whether the motion in its present form complies with this rule.


Thomas Langton Church: At the time the Hydro
Electric Power Commission wanted these lands the railway would not sell them. They declined to sell the lands. The Minister of Railways and Canals has a copy of all the correspondence. If this motion cannot be complied with there will be another way to get it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The point is whether a
motion for the return of documents is in order when it contains allegations, no matter whether the allegations are true or not. If such a motion is in order, all sorts of statements and allegations can be made on a motion for a return, and inferentially assented to by the house when passed. My hon. friend may be perfectly certain as to his statements, far as he is concerned, but he certainly does not want the house to adopt a motion which inferentially agrees with these statements, even if true. The documents themselves will show whether the statements are correct. It is not in order to embody such statements in a motion for a return.


Thomas Langton Church: That will be satisfactory.
I only want a return of the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As it now reads, there
are no allegations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is an
allegation as to the sale without public tender. We do not know whether that is so or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see what you mean.
My hon. friend is right in that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of the existing contract (a) between the government and the Ottawa Electric Company on which the government pays $86,524.31 annually, and (b) a copy of a contract between the government and the Hydro Electric Commission on which the government pays for electric light and power $38,964.36, annually, with rates paid for direct current in each case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, there may
be such a contract or such contracts in existence, but it is impossible to say offhand that there are any. The government is quite prepared to bring down any contract between the government and the Ottawa Electric Company which the hon. member may wish to see; but I do not think I can say in advance that the particular figures set out are correct.


Thomas Langton Church: I simply wanted a copy of the rates charged the government for direct current by the Ottawa Electric Company and the Hydro Electric Power Commission. I do not want to cause the government any trouble. I would like to know the rates charged in each case if there is no public objection. The figures in the motion were given in an answer the other day by the government to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps).


John Frederick Johnston: Carried with
the limitation placed on the motion by the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to give the same treatment to the bill, order No. 28, page 16 of the orders of the day, the second reading of the Bill No. 63, to amend the Railway Act, standing in the name of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) an act relating to all of Canada, as he has given to the bill of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my hon. friend that it was the house which gave the permission and not the government.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY BEAUHARNOIS POWER COMPANY AND ASBESTOS CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask the Prime
Minister if he is now in a position to answer the questions which I asked the other day in respect to the Beauhamois power canal, and also the one I asked yesterday with respect to the Asbestos Corporation of Canada and litigation in the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must
apologize to my hon. friend; I had overlooked these matters. I will look into them and give an answer soon.
Alberta Coal



ALBERTA COAL TRANSPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask the minister whether the provisions of the order in council as to the removal of coal from Alberta are now effective.


Charles A. Stewart: The order
was effective from the 15th, I understand, by order of the railway commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was some difficulty.


Charles A. Stewart: They may
be having a great many difficulties, but as far as I know they are getting them straightened out.



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from May 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, to amend the Naturalization Act-Mr. Rinfret-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, when
the committee rose I was endeavouring to direct attention to the fact that the submissions we have made to the committee were that under the provisions of the statute in some of the British possessions regulations are made by the governor in council to carry into effect the provisions of the statute, but that in other countries, notably in South Africa, instead of the regulations being made by the governor in council, and subject to being rescinded at will by the governor in council, substantive provisions were introduced into the statute itself.
Last evening the Secretary of State was good enough to suggest that an amendment might be made, which amendment deals only with the question of notice. Now, having conceded the point that the giving of notice should not be done by order in council, I think the Secretary of State must be logical and introduce an amendment to indicate how he is to apprise himself as minister whether or not there has been a compliance by the applicant with the provisions of the statute with respect to residence, character, and adequate knowledge of the English or French language. If it is necessary to add to this bill a provision with respect to the posting of notice in the post office, much more is it necessary that the essential provisions which are standard throughout the empire should in some measure be dealt with in the bill so far as compliance with them is concerned. In other words, since we have now by this amendment sought to provide the means by which notice shall be given to the world, namely, by the

posting in the post office of a notice, which will be torn down the day after it is put up, and which is exactly the thing they refused to do in South Africa and in other communities, where they provide that the notice shall be printed in the Gazette or in a newspaper circulating in the district where the applicant resides-if it is necessary to provide in the bill for the mere posting of the notice in a country post office where it will disappear twenty minutes after it is put up-


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Why would it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because in these small
country post offices that is the fate of all notices.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except the notices that
are protected by the statute, by the Post Office Act itself.


Edward James Young: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman from Weyburn has had much more experience than I, and therefore I accept his view with respect to the matter. I can only say, having some knowledge of the fate of notices of that character, that they do not continue long in place, and we had a noteworthy example of that when we had a provision in the old electoral act under which the lists were hung up at given points, and they disappeared sometimes twenty-four hours, sometimes thirty-six and sometimes forty-eight hours after being hung up.
The point I make is that we have dealt now with only one feature, namely, the question of notice, and since we have thought it desirable to deal by legislative enactment with the question of notice, much more is it necessary that we should deal in the statute itself with'the method by which the minister is to become apprised whether or not the applicant has met the standard requirements of the act. I asked the minister last evening, I ask him tc-day, and I suppose we will have to continue to ask him, by what means he proposes to make known to himself as minister, in his judicial or executive capacity, whether or not these provisions have been complied with.
Recall, Mr. Chairman, that in the early discussion of this measure the minister desired to have uniformity. That was one of the words he used. He said that judicial discretion had been exercised in different ways throughout Canada, and that now he desired uniformity. Is he to get uniformity from a homestead inspector in Saskatchewan, from

Naturalization Act
a mounted policeman in New Brunswick, and from other agents in other provinces? There are nine provinces in this confederation, nine provinces in which there can be naturalization, and by what method, I ask, through what means, does the minister propose to satisfy himseif, as the high executive official empowered to discharge a very great duty, as was pointed out both by Mr. Churchill and Sir John Simon, with respect to the naturalization of a person within the king's dominions throughout this empire-how does the minister propose to make known to himself whether that parson named John Smith resided in Canada during the period in question? He has answered that question. He has answered it, in my judgment, in accordance with the principles that prevail in the United States. He has stated that he proposes to have those documents transmitted to the Department of Immigration, and to have them indicate whether or not there is a verification in their records of the statements made by the applicant as to the ship on which he arrived, or the train on which he came and where he crossed the border, so that a check up can be made by the department of the allegations made in the application. That is what they do in the United States, only there it is provided by statute that these documents shall be transmitted to the Department cf Trade and Commerce or to the Department of Labour

I think it is both-for the purpose of having the statements verified.
I now come to the second point. How is the minister to satisfy himself that the applicant has an adequate knowledge of the English or French language? That is my difficulty. How is he going to do it? That problem I find engaged the attention of our legislators in the early days, and we concluded, with our limited form of naturalization, that instead of it being done as might have been suggested then in another way, that the responsibility should be placed upon the judges. I do submit to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister that this is a very difficult, problem. If we take this responsibility away from the judges-I confess that I have thought of every means suggested by the minister; I have thought it over during the night-I can only point out that inasmuch as uniformity is desired, judicial decisions are the nearest approach that we can get >to it in this country. The minister points out that that is not very good, but that is the nearest approach that we can get to uniformity. What are the reasons urged against it?
The reasons that are urged against it are that it puts the applicant to the inconvenience of travelling a certain distance to meet the 56103-165
judges. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place, but perhaps it is just as well that he is not. When he made light of the whole proceedings last evening, and said that it meant they were going to have a new game called chasing the judge, that was so unworthy of a minister of the crown in dealing with a matter of this kind that in the subsequent observations I made I passed it by. It is degrading to this parliament that the matter should thus be treated, because when the minister spoke of this as a new game of chasing the judge, he knew, as all members know, that there are court houses in which the judges sit, and that there are provided by the provinces buildings for that purpose, and that in the gazettes and newspapers of the provinces there are indicated the days and dates and the places at which the courts will sit. I pointed out, in answer to an interjection by my hon. friend from Yorkton (Mr. M'cPhee) yesterday, that the provincial governments determine where the courts shall sit, and if any inconvenience is being worked by reason of this provision, the provincial government can remedy that overnight. It can provide for a sitting of the district court at any particular point, and as I say, in the province of Alberta does so. I do not know that Alberta is at all exceptional as compared with the other western provinces in that respect, but in the province of Alberta the government. gets the best information it can obtain, and then says that there shall be sittings of the district court at designated small communities, such as Olds, Okotoks and other points that perhaps mean nothing to the hon. gentlemen opposite, but they are the names of the places at which the courts will sit. Therefore the applicant is enabled to know where he will find the judge. He has the right to go to the clerk of the court and ask him; he has the right to go to the process issuer and ask him, and the sittings of the court are as provided, not by this government, for there is no responsibility upon this parliament in respect to the matter-all that this parliament has to do is to provide the judges, and the judges have cast upon them by statute the duty, and that duty they must discharge. That is part of the judicial duties imposed upon them by a statute of the parliament of Canada. The imposition of that judicial duty by statute of this parliament still leaves open to the provincial authorities the determination of the points at which the courts shall sit, and the days on which the courts shall be opened.

Naturalization Act


Mr. McPHEE:: The provincial governments have nothing to do with naturalization. They only regulate the terms of the court for civil proceedings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. member
for Yorkton does not mean that seriously. There is not a naturalization court that sits as such at all. It is at a meeting of the civil court, when it is sitting, that the naturalization applications are presented, and my hon. friend, of course, knows that. There never has been, and there never will be, a naturalization court as such. What happens is that when the civil court, or it might be the criminal assize court, is opened, all those who desire to obtain naturalization have a right to appear and present their applications, and the court considers them as a matter of course. There are no special sittings of the court to deal with naturalization, although the provincial governments might arrange for special sittings at which only naturalization applications would be considered. Some of the western provinces impose upon the judges special duties with respect to' provincial legislation, tax returns and matters of that kind. This parliament from time to time imposes upon the judges very onerous and special duties; and this whole problem can be solved without any difficulty by merely appointing through the provincial government a day and a place for the court sittings. For instance, away up in the Great Slave lake country it became essential for a judge to hold court. The supreme court or district court judge goes out and holds court, notice of which has been given, and at the sitting anything which may be heard by a judge exercising such jurisdiction may be presented. Objection has been taken by some friends opposite who do not practise law to my statement of what the law is, so I shall modify it in this way. I submit to the committee that when the judge opens his court every matter prescribed by statute for his consideration may be legally and properly brought before him.
Next I come to the question of character and the question of language. I am satisfied with the answer that my friend the Secretary of State has given with respect to the first question, namely, that of residence, and the checking it up through the records of other departments. But on the other two points how is he to satisfy himself? Let us treat this matter as reasonable men. There are nine provinces. Uniformity is desired. Who does it in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia,

in Prince Edward Island, in Quebec, in Ontario, in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in British Columbia?-not the same type of person. You can have no uniformity as you have under judicial decisions-such as it is. It is well said by the minister that the exercise of judicial discretion may not be the same in British Columbia as in Prince Edward Island, but it does not follow that the judicial discretion thus exercised is erroneous. In either case it may be correct. As pointed out by Chief Justice Meredith, the difficulty lies in the fact that the department of the Secretary of State has not indicated the principles which should govern with respect to it.
I do not wish to traverse this ground again, but once more I ask-and I think it will be admitted by the right hon. gentleman who leads this house (Mr. Mackenzie King) that when we are eliminating a judicial inquiry we are as a committee entitled to know what is to be substituted for it, once more I ask: What inquiry is to be substituted for it? Because it is admitted that the Secretary of State cannot do it directly; therefore he has to do it through some agency. What agency is it to be? How is it to operate? Who is the agent? Those are all the questions we ask. This amendment deals only with one phase of the many regulations that have to be made, namely, that of notice. Before the bill is passed we must deal with those phases to which I have directed attention.
There are other matters to which I might refer. For instance, last evening the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) discussed this from the standpoint of voting. An obvious and reasonable retort might be made, but I refrain. I do consider this matter far beyond any controversy that might be entered into with any gentleman opposite with respect to any question of voting. In my judgment it is most important in view of the fact that we are bringing into this country increasing numbers of aliens. The figures presented by my friend from Vancouver abundantly establish this fact. Therefore more and more must recourse be had to this statute for the purpose of enabling those who so desire to become British subjects. And the term, "British subject" means so much that in view of the agreement we entered into when we established this standard of qualification, we cannot afford to depart from it in the sense of making it impossible for us as members of parliament to say how the minister is to be satisfied. And this parliament has the right to know. I will accept the minister's answer in respect to the firsit point. As to the two

Naturalization Act
points to which I have now directed his attention, I should like to ask him-he has the figures before him I trust-how many applications for naturalization have been granted by the minister himself during the last twelve months without reference to the courts at all? Have there been any?


Mr. RINFRET:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would think not. But I gathered from my hon. and learned friend from Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) that it was much easier for him to apply direct to the Secretary of State than through the medium of the judges.


Mr. JACOBS:: Not at all. My hon. friend must have misunderstood me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He put it that way; I
do not think he so intended. I made a retort at the time which when I read it in Hansard indicated, it seemed to me, that possibly he did not mean it in the sense expressed. He said there were dual methods, and he preferred to go to the Secretary of State direct.


Samuel William Jacobs: No. I said there were two methods: that the party applying could go before a judge and then have his certificate vised, you might say, by the Secretary of State; or the Secretary of State could use his own discretion without regard to the court and issue the certificate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust my hon. and
learned friend will be good enough to look at the statute carefully, when I think he will find that the observations made by my friend from Toronto Northeast, sufficiently indicates that that is not the class of case intended. Let me illustrate in this way. When the act first came into force there were three cases in which certificates of naturalization were granted: one to the late Sir William Van Horne, the second to the late Lord Shaughnessy, and the third to my hon. friend who sits to my right (Sir George Perley). The Secretary of State granted those certificates at once without any judicial inquiry because there is a provision in the act to cover such cases. As my friend will recall, there is a special section to remove doubts. But I put this matter not only to the Secretary of State but to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). After all, he is vitally interested in it. We have here one of his colleagues exercising practically a judicial function. In the exercise of it he must be satisfied by the evidence, and that evidence he himself cannot gather. Then the committee is asking to be informed as to how that evidence is to be gathered. I am assuming the statutory requirement with respect to the judges is repealed; there is no judicial
inquiry; this bill becomes into force, and I ask him to make it clear to this committee how the Secretary of State is going to satisfy himself so that he may exercise the discretion granted to him under the statute in the manner the law contemplated with respect to character and adequacy of knowledge of English or French.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Mr. Chairman, during the course of this debate we have listened to a considerable number of objections to the bill with which I do not intend to deal at length. There is flying around Canada in connection with questions of this kind a great deal of old straw, and if any useful purpose could be served by threshing it out I guess we could all engage in it. I would draw attention to the statement made yesterday by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) with regard to myself, to the effect that the member for Melfort was not interested in the fleet on the high seas. I cannot for the life of me think what he meant by that, but to my mind the member for Melfort is just as much interested in it as the member for Calgary or the representative of any other constituency. I repeat, I do not know what he referred to, but whatever it may mean I repudiate it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm McLean: I notice that raises a laugh, but sometimes he who laughs last laughs longest. Undoubtedly this measure has been needed for many years. I happen to have at least a little evidence of that under my hand at the moment. One letter came to me yesterday with reference to the question of naturalization, and another letter some time previously in connection with the same matter. Before that also I received a communication. The letter I got yesterday is .from a gentleman whom I know well, a man who has been a resident of Canada for a good many years. I hold in my hand the original discharge certificate of this man who served as a sergeant in France during the war. He took the oath of allegiance and naturally he assumed, as many othens have done, that thereby he became a Canadian citizen and a British subject. And he acted on that assumption for a number of years. The time came when he wanted to establish beyond any doubt that he was a Canadian citizen, and on indicating the circumstances which in his opinion entitled him to Canadian citizenship, he was informed that under the law he was not a Canadian citizen, and that he must go through the formalities prescribed before he could become naturalized. And this notwithstanding the number of years he had served the country in France. Not know-
Naturalization Act

ing what else to do he writes me on the subject, inquiring what I can do in the matter, and enclosing five dollars, which he understands is the requisite fee. The letter he mailed from a point 100 miles away from a court house. I will admit that he could go to a judge and ascertain when he might be heard, and I have no doubt the judge would accord him a courteous hearing. But consider the trouble, the delay, the inconvenience and the humiliation to which he is put under these circumstances.
I have here two telegrams from men of the same type. The first man has a name as British, as Canadian as is my own name or the n,ames of many other hon. gentlemen. He is not of foreign extraction; he is of British blood. But he happened to have been born in the United States. The other man's name is equally British. He, too, was born in the United States but he served in the Canadian army, and of course he took it for granted that he wias a Canadian citizen. To his surprise, however-he lives in far northern Saskatchewan-he discovered last year that he had not the status of a British subject, and this discovery was quite embarrassing to him. He is now in the same difficulty as is the applicant to whom I have already referred. He has to travel to the court nearest his residence-not in Saskatchewan but in Manitoba-and this is the statement he makes in his telegram:
Be naturalization application, am filing this application to-day. Court sessions June-
I may observe by the way that this is dated April 23.
Court sessions June and September. September too late, June too early according to three months' posting regulations. Wire collect if anything can be done to enable Smith to appear before judge in June and finish up.
It will cost this man a great deal of money to obtain something which he certainly deserves to have. I do not think that any hon. member in this chamber will suggest for a moment that he is not entitled to Canadian citizenship under the circumstances I have indicated. A man who has served in the army and fought for the empire should be entitled to all the rights of a British subject.
I have another application which came to me a short time ago from a man who writes from Lac du Brochet, which, as the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) observed a little while ago, may mean nothing to the majority of hon. members, being a point away up in northern Manitoba. This man writes:
I have enclosed herewith an application for naturalization on his behalf. This man is a trapper, located in northern Manitoba, near
]Mr. McLean.]
the Northwest Territory boundary line. He was advised to take the matter up with you as it is impossible for him to get out to civilization so as to make personal application for his papers. I can see no reason why this man should not receive his citizenship papers but I understood it was customary for a man to go before a judge in person.
This is signed by a police magistrate in that district. Now, it may be said that these three cases are exceptional. Well, they may be exceptional in degree, but there are many other cases more or less on a par with them. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) yesterday stated that a good many people in the northern part of his district were at a great disadvantage and considerable inconvenience, being obliged to go long distances by rail, stopping over many times; and finding it impossible to get the matter disposed of on the first occasion, and possibly after a second or a third attempt, they come to the conclusion that it is just as well to leave things as they are. I can thoroughly endorse that. Many men in western Canada to-day who would like to be naturalized and are entitled to the privilege find too many obstacles placed in their path, so that it is extremely difficult for them to obtain their Canadian citizenship. They are Canadians in sentiment as well as in interest, and they have Canadian families growing up. In many cases the children were born in this country. Sometimes the parents, not having been naturalized, feel that they cannot take that pride which they should in living in this country. It is not a matter, on their part, of wishing to avoid the responsibilities of citizenship; as one hon. member observed yesterday, these people very often are hard up financially. It is no easy matter for a man who is not very well off to spend $25, $40, $60 or $100 in order to take witnesses to a court in a matter of this kind. Furthermore-I have known this practice to prevail, and I could get evidence to back me up on the point-many judges insist that persons applying for naturalization shall attend a central court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They cannot do that
under the statute.


Malcolm McLean: I am not casting any reflection on the judges. But who regulates the judges?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The law does.


Malcolm McLean: How can the
law regulate a judge -who writes to the Secretary of State saying, "I should like you to interpret this law; I do not know what it means."

Naturalization Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute provides that the governor in council shall make regulations.


Mr. HOCKEN:: You want a new judge.


Malcolm McLean: No, we do not
want a new judge, but a great deal of the law of this country, like that of Great Britain, is judge-made law. I am sure my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) will agree with that. A great deal of the law is judge-made. The judges are building up the body of the law, and I am not objecting to that. But what I am pointing out is that many of the judges do insist that applicants shall come to a central court. Now, take a constituency like the one I have the honour to represent. The settled portion, so far as matters relating to naturalization are concerned, covers a territory approximately 200 miles from east to west and 500 miles from north to south. The letters I have dealt with come from men-at least two of them do-living approximately 700 miles north of the American boundary. One judicial district covers an area of 20,000 square miles, and it is true the judge goes into thickly settled country, up and down the lines of railway. To my knowledge, it has never happened that he has left a settled portion of the country and gone to another part, off the railroad. In fact districts served by many scores of miles of railroad often have no occasion to hold courts. These people are told to come to a central point, and when they get there they find other cases, perhaps more important than theirs, ahead of them and they have to wait. The judge perhaps receives various calls and the applicants are obliged to return. It is not fair. In the old days, about which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) spoke, when thousands of aliens were being naturalized in Canada, the result on the whole was good, as was evidenced clearly when the war struck this country. These people who had been naturalized but a short time before stood loyal and true to British and Canadian institutions; they were just as loyal as any other Canadians. If hon. gentlemen had had the pleasure and privilege which I enjoyed last year, on the first of July, they would appreciate the situation, and I fancy that their conception of this whole matter would be different. I met school children who had travelled twenty miles over roads that were not very good, and they displayed the greatest pride and enthusiasm in Canadian institutions,
Canadian laws and everything British. It is a crime to put any obstacle in the way of the naturalization of such people. The majority of these people were naturalized under the old law. I will admit that in some cases the provisions of the law were not absolutely lived up to. But that is true of every other law that I have ever heard of. We have various laws against one crime and another, but these laws are not all observed in their entirety.
One point to which I take exception so far as Saskatchewan is concerned has reference to what the leader of the opposition said yesterday:
And my hon. friends know that it was a crying scandal in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and partly in Manitoba, where thousands of men were naturalized by being huddled together in a group, and someone going in to them with a paper and asking them to sign their names-
In the twenty-five years that I have lived in western Canada I have not witnessed anything of that description nor have I heard of it. Thousands of people gathered in a group?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not thousands of people in one group.


Malcolm McLean: That is what
Hansard says and I think Hansard is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read it carefully.


Malcolm McLean: I will read it
again carefully:
My hon. friends know that it was a crying scandal in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and partly in Manitoba, where thousands of men were naturalized by being huddled together in a group, and someone going in to them with a paper and asking them to sign their names-


Mr. HEAPS:: That is only an inaccurate
statement by the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman knows very well that it was not meant that these men were all in one group.


Malcolm McLean: I appreciate that, and I would be the last to blame the hon. leader of the opposition for seriously making that statement, but unfortunately it has gone on Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one reads it that
way.


Malcolm McLean: The language is perfectly plain, and if anyone doubts my reading of it it will be found at page 2551 of Hansard. Possibly I am in the unfortunate position of not having an adequate knowledge of the English language and so not understanding these words, but there is the state-
260S
Naturalization Act

ment. I will admit that in the past mistakes may have been made and crimes committed under the law, but I think it is a very serious, thing to say that because mistakes were made we are going to continue a practice which makes it extremely difficult to obtain naturalization, to which many men are entitled. I have been advised by a gentleman who is in a position to know pretty well what is going on in western Canada that the strongest argument against the present system is that it places the right to naturalization on a basis of cost. Even that would not be so bad but for the fact that the very organization of judicial districts makes that basis of cost unequal and almost prohibitive to many men who want to become naturalized. It is not that they are unwilling to spend the necessary money and time, but they have not the money to spend.
I noticed some of the objections made by various speakers; I am not going to take up much time with them, as I said before, but the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) stated that people who know a man are well able to judge whether or not he should be naturalized. I quite agree with that remark, but I would disagree if the statement were made that a judge, simply by asking a few questions of an applicant coming before him, is better able to form an opinion of the qualifications possessed by that man than the neighbours among whom he lives from day to day and year to year and who know his character perfectly. Many men can go into a court room and make a fair appearance; they may be able to impress a judge who is not acquainted with them, but it might be harder to produce that impression in their own district if an inquiry were held there.
Then the leader of the opposition brought up one or two points with which I should like to deal. First I should like to know what he understands by an "adequate knowledge of the English language," which was one of the main points with which he dealt both yesterday and to-day. In my opinion it is very difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define the meaning of the word "adequate" as it is contained in this act.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I suggest that perhaps it is the ability to conceal one's thoughts?


Malcolm McLean: Sometimes the need is for ability to control one's facial expression rather than one's tongue; that is good philosophy in certain enterprises, at any rate. The question of inadequate knowledge of the English language is one which is hard to define; for instance, take an aged couple

living in Canada, with children growing up and going to school. They have resided in Canada for quite a long time and have property interests which require that they become naturalized, as in the case of homesteaders. They have quite an adequate knowledge of the English language for their own use, and for the transaction of their own local business; they have children going to school who are able to help them write their letters, and some of them write comparatively fine letters. They are able to get along all right in the ordinary way, but when they come into court one judge might rule that they have an adequate knowledge of English while another might hold the opposite opinion and consider their knowledge to be grossly inadequate. I will admit that the knowledge of English necessary on the part of a man going into professional or business life must be greater than that of a man completing work on his homestead and living out the last few years of his life. It has been said that anyone wishing to obtain the privileges of citizenship certainly should learn the English language; in certain circumstances I believe that is a duty incumbent upon such people, but in many cases it is hard for them to do so. Rightly or wrongly-and I am not discussing that question at the moment- they have been placed in districts where it is very difficult for old people to learn English; many of the newcomers to our country are more anxious to learn our language than those who have been here a long time. I should like hon. members of this house who have tried to learn a language other than their own to tell us just how hard it is. In this house we have two official languages, English and French, and I am sorry to admit that very few members speak the second of these two languages. If it were so easy for these poor foreign immigrants coming to Canada to learn our language I imagine many of our statesmen and members of parliament would learn the alternate language in this house, because that would be an accomplishment of which they might well be proud.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Then would the hon. gentleman advocate doing away with the language qualification?


Malcolm McLean: No, I am not suggesting that; I am dealing with the difficulty of interpreting the word "adequate".


John Wesley Edwards: It is no more difficult for a judge to do so than for an agent appointed by the department.


Malcolm McLean: That is so, but we have had statements from three learned

Naturalization Act
judges, and I think it is rather a peculiar coincidence that two if not all three of these judges were apointed to the bench by my hon. friends opposite. These three judges say they find great difficulty in interpreting this law, and they ask the Secretary of State to clarify it for them. The judges are on the bench to interpret the laws which are passed by this parliament, and they should not find it necessary to ask for instruction.
Another point which was brought up yesterday was the lack of ceremony obtaining in these applications for naturalization. In that connection I would just say that if the ceremonious proceedings which are followed in the United States to-day, and which have been followed for a good many years, do not produce any higher type of citizenship than that which has been shown in some of their congested cities, I prefer the Canadian procedure. Furthermore, I cannot understand why so many hon. members of this house are so anxious to go- to the United States for examples and precepts rather than to Great Britain, and why they should desire to follow the United States rather than the different British dominions. I do not think the lack of ceremony in the conduct of our affairs makes any difference at all. Many of our people are not accustomed to court houses; they look upon them as places where law-breakers and wrong-doers are dealt with. When they find themselves in a court house to ask for something which the law says they have a right to obtain if they fulfil certain conditions, they are in a state of mental turmoil. I would even go further than that; many people who have an adequate knowledge of the English language for their ordinary business affairs, people who should be naturalized provided they can show a good character and a sufficient residence in the country, find it very difficult when in court to understand the learned judge who may be questioning them at the time. I will illustrate that fact by a personal reference. During the past few days I have been attending the meetings of a committee of this house; I have listened to very learned gentlemen give their evidence, men who have a thorough knowledge of the English language, perhaps much more adequate than that which I possess, and I must admit that I had to pay the closest attention and to concentrate to the best of my ability7" in order to understand what they were saying. I think almost every hon. member of the house has had a similar experience. I have been with men from another part of the empire; I have associated with them and spent nights in the same-


An hon. MEMBER:: Bar room?


Mr. LADNER:: May I ask if the hon.
gentleman is referring to Scotch witnesses?


Malcolm McLean: I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) knows that the Scotch tongue is pretty well understood wherever you may go in this country, but I was not referring to Scotchmen. I have associated with men from other parts of the empire at different times and have found it extremely hard to understand their speech as they went along, yet we ask these aliens, who may be semi-illiterate in the use of English, if I may use that expression, to go into a court room and fluently answer questions propounded to them by a judge whose accent may be such as they have never heard before. We find further that men have been refused naturalization in Canada because they could not answer such questions as, What is the constitution of Canada? Who is the premier of Prince Edward Island? Who is the lieutenant governor of British Columbia? Questions which many of the hon. members of this house could not answer offhand, and I am putting myself in the same class as other hon. members.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a foolish question.


Malcolm McLean: But there is
nothing against it in the law. An hon. member the other day said some of these people came to him for advice and that he told them to go and see a lawyer. But I tell the hon. member that there are many people in outlying districts who cannot afford to see a lawyer. I am not speaking for people in cities and large towns where a judge is sitting periodically and regularly in chambers and it is easy for them to come to that place. I am speaking for those who often make a real sacrifice, and cannot afford it, in order to get their naturalization certificates. In view of the opinion of the learned judges quoted, I think the least we can do is to make a change which will make the procedure much simpler.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) the other day, seeing he has asked a question of me now, I will deal with one remark of his-made the extraordinary statement that I think very few Canadians will agree with, namely that the high standing of the judiciary in this country has had the result of a high class of citizenship being built up. I think he was putting the cart before the horse, and that the high class of citizenship results in the high class of the judiciary. But the high class of citizenshin must mme first.
Naturalization Act


Leon Johnson Ladner: I should like to correct
the hon. gentleman. From my recollection of what I said, I must conclude that he has misunderstood my remark. The point of it was that the judiciary were better fitted by their training to consider and determine the application for naturalization than would be the police officers or representatives of the Department of the Secretary of State scattered throughout the whole country. That was the point of my remark.


Malcolm McLean: I do not know very much about the intentions of the hon. gentleman, but I remember what I heard, and that was that the high class of the judiciary was responsible for the building up of a high class citizenship. It is the other way about entirely.
The leader of the opposition is very much afraid that in the very small post offices these notices will be torn down as soon as they are put up. I think that is unfair. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre said that many of the postmasters receive only $14 and upwards.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that they
would be torn down by the postmasters.


Malcolm McLean: In very many
districts the postmaster is a man of more than average intelligence, one who takes pride in his office and keeps the post office for community service rather than for gain. I am quite sure that those notices may be seen, and a notice posted in a country post office will foe seen and read by more people during the sixty days or three months which have to run than will a corresponding notice hung up on the wall of a court room office. I am speaking of what I know. I have seen similar notices hanging up in country post offices. For instance, a man's homestead entry is due to be cancelled, and the notice goes to the country post office and is hung up on the wall; and I have never had any complaint about the notice being torn down and the man affected not getting an opportunity to know about it.
Another thing. I have been in court houses, fortunately not very often, and have 6een notices for naturalization posted there. They are not strung around the walls, because it would be impossible to find space for that kind of thing; but they are hung up on top of one another, and very few people get an opportunity to know of them at all. Certainly the people in the locality where the man lives who is making application do not get to know of it. Were the application posted in the post office in his district, nearest where he lives, the people there could be invited to
f\f- Mrl^.an.1
communicate with the Secretary of State at Ottawa if they had any objection to the man being naturalized, and I think it would help a good deal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not desire to interrupt my hon. friend during the progress of his observations, which dealt only with the question of notice. But how does the hon. gentleman suggest we should deal with the other two questions, those of character and language?-because those are standard qualifications.


Malcolm McLean: In our country at the present time the mounted police, among Dther duties, do visit and make investigations. They visit the homes and take note of the character of the people. The fact that a man has lived for years in a community without getting into trouble is a fairly good recommendation in itself. The matter of the language is hard to deal with uniformly; but if a mounted policeman is able to call at the home of a man who is asking for naturalization, and asks regarding the best road to town, or, where is the nearest gas filling station on the way to town, or other such usual questions, it is a fair approach to getting information on the subject. It is true that the mounted police in the old days did not use gasoline, but they do to-day; and there are many ways in which they can get information. I have no knowledge of the regulations which the minister has in his mind; but in sparsely settled parts of the country, such as in this case which I mentioned a while ago where a letter came from Lac du Brochet, where a man purporting to be a police magistrate enclosed an application form for some other man, different conditions prevail from those in well settled districts. Even in remote localities there are usually local improvement or municipality officers, ministers of the gospel and other neighbours of the applicant who can give the police a good deal of information as to the adequacy of knowledge of the English language possessed by the man, and his character, and so on, and in that way the police would be able to get a good deal of help.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Chairman, I
doubt if any applicant has ever been refused naturalization because of being unable to answer a question as to who is the lieutenant governor of Prince Edward Island or any other such catch question. I do not think the county court judges or other judges charged with the administration of this act make a practice of asking any such foolish questions. I have seen naturalization proceedings in

Naturalization Act
various courts in Canada, but I have never seen any such proceeding as the hon. member for Melfort suggests might take place.
The only reason advanced by the Secretary of State for the necessity of the proposed amendment to the present Naturalization Act is that in some places applicants are somewhat inconvenienced by the requirements of the present act. Complying with all law and regulations ordinarily must entail certain inconvenience to some people, and a greater degree of inconvenience on some than on others; but the inconvenience of attending before a court can be largely minimized or even done away with by regulating the sittings of the courts. It may be said that the authority for regulating the sittings of courts lies in the provincial governments; but after all the Dominion government pays, and the authority that pays can regulate. There is no doubt that the provincial authorities would join in the regulation of the sittings of the courts, and most of the inconvenience could thus be obviated. There is an incident to which I should like to call the attention of the committee and which arose not very long ago in the administration of the Naturalization Act. This is reported in the Morning Star, a Liberal newspaper published at Vancouver, under date of January 12 last. It appears under the heading of a despatch from Ottawa, as follows:
"Action of Judge Grant of Vancouver, in refusing to recommend several Japanese applicants for Canadian citizenship, taking the stand that Japanese were not assimilable into the Anglo-Saxon race, was a violation of the provisions of the Naturalization Act; and in so doing the Vancouver judge exceeded his duties as these are governed by the act."
This was the comment to-day of high officials of the Department of the Secretary of State, when attention was drawn to the Vancouver despatch quoting Judge Grant's decision. It was pointed out that the Naturalization Act of Canada lays down no requirements from an applicant as to whether his racial origin is of a nature that would make him assimilable or not.
It was further declared by the officials here that the act stated plainly that grant of a certificate of naturalization was in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State. A judge's report, the officials declared, should be based upon inquiries into the applicant's fitness and qualifications as these were governed by the act; it should deal with facts and not opinions.
Then the article continues:
As far as the Naturalization Act is concerned, it throws upon judge before -whom applicants appear the duty of deciding whether such applicant is a fit and proper person to be given a certificate of naturalization. Judge David Grant made this statement Wednesday night in reply to the foregoing despatch, adding that he has never hesitated to pass upon persons who come before him.
As a matter of fact the act as it stands today gives judges discretion in deciding whether or not an applicant is a fit and proper person to be naturalized and if for no other reason than that the act as it now stands gives the judge that discretion, it should be left as it is. We have in the Dominion of Canada at least one judge who is Canadian enough and courageous enough to decline to recommend an oriental as a fit subject for naturalization in this country, and I think the majority of the people will agree with his decision on that point.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Is there in the statute
anything directing the judge to act like that, or is that not rather a matter of policy that should be left to the government to decide?


George Black: Section 26 provides :
If the court decides that the alien is a fit and proper person to be naturalized and possesses the required qualifications a certified copy of such decision shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of State of Canada together with the application and such other papers, documents and reports as may be required by any regulation made hereunder.
The wording is:
If the court decides that the alien is a fit and proper person to be naturalized.
Surely that is as broad a discretion as anyone could have. The judge decides whether the man is a fit and proper person, and the fact that he will never make a proper citizen of this country is sufficient to justify any judge in declining to recommend an oriental for naturalization. They cannot be assimilated into our nationality, and Japan does not extend to us equal privileges in the way of naturalization. The law in Japan requires that an applicant shall, as a consequence of acquiring Japanese nationality, lose his original nationality. Our Naturalization Act does not require anything of that kind. In fact Japanese, notwithstanding the fact that they may go through the form of naturalization in Canada are not released by the Japanese government from their allegiance to Japan. The Japanese government never regard them as aliens; they are still subject and liable to the kingdom of Japan. For that, if for no other reason, we should not change our Naturalization Act. If the evidently inspired despatch from Ottawa expresses the policy of the Secretary of State in regard to naturalization of orientals, there would be no check on them at all. If it is left to the Secretary of State to say whether or not an oriental should be naturalized, his
Naturalization Act

opinion and that of the department is that a judge has no right to refuse such naturalization. I believe the Canadian people as a whole will say that the judges are right and that orientals are not fit and should not be allowed to be naturalized in this country. They are not assimilable here because they cannot properly and successfully intermarry with Canadians. Is there a member in this house that would like to see his son or his daughter intermarry with an oriental? Certainly not. That means that they are not assimilable; they are not fit and proper persons to be citizens of this country, and probably, no oriental would want to see his children intermarry with ours. That is a feature of the act that is of value to the Dominion of Canada. I will go this far, that if the government will by a definite statutory provision prohibit the naturalization of orientals in this country I for one will be prepared to support the legislation.
I do not think the amendment suggested by the minister improves his bill as originally introduced. It may be that the posting up of notices in post offices will give notice to more people interested in an application for naturalization than the present system of posting the notice in the office of the clerk of the court. If that is so I would say that that requirement should be added to the present one and that the applicant should be required not only to have a notice posted up in the office of the clerk of the court but to have a notice posted up in the post office; but we should not remove any safeguards which the act at present provides.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is just one phase of the bill now before the house to which I should like to direct the attention of the government. Prior to 1914, naturalization in Canada and in all the other British dominions, in fact in all the possessions of the crown throughout the world, was a matter of purely local jurisdiction. Prior to 1914 in this country application was first made to the clerk of the court. It was supported by affidavit, passed upon pro forma, and a certificate issued to the applicant making him, if you please, a Canadian citizen and entitling him within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament to the rights and privileges of a Canadian citizen. Prior to that time we had had arising from time to time in Canada a constitutional discussion which is symbolic of the discussions that have occurred since the late imperial conference, and indicative of the class of discussions which are 'bound to arise in the future in regard to a number of subjects which

are within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament but yet are within the legal legislative juris'dicton of the parliament of Great Britain and also within the legislative jurisdictions of the other dominions, as regards all their citizens and property rights within those dominions.
After the British North America Act was passed providing in section 91, subsection 25 that the parliament of Canada should have legislative jurisdiction with regard to naturalization and aliens, I remember very well that the question then arose of the necessity of preserving the autonomy of Canada in respect of all legislation respecting the naturalization of aliens within the jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament. No doubt after the British North America Act of 1867 was passed, there was the legal right on the part of the imperial parliament, so-called, to legislate that British subjects naturalized under the laws of Great Britain or under the laws of other British dominions should have the rights of British subjects and Canadian citizens within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. But by conceding to the parliament of. Canada, under the section of the British North America Act which I have just quoted, the exclusive right to legislate with regard to the naturalization of aliens, the parliament of Great Britain, in a constitutional sense, placed it beyond the constitutional right and power of the parliament of Great Britain to legislate upon that subject by the enactment of statutes which would apply within the territorial jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. These discussions proceeded from year to year until the imperial conference of 1911. It was then decided that some way out of the difficulty should be found by mutual agreement between the parliaments of the dominions and the parliament of Great Britain, and that it must be found by such a compromise as would mot impose upon Canada, an autonomous dominion, imperial legislation without the consent of the parliament of Canada.
That compromise was framed by the drafting of the imperial act of 1914. That imperial act for the first time made provision that an alien who had become by naturalization a Canadian citizen might also have the rights and privileges of a British citizen throughout the empire. I remember many instances happening which showed how necessary it was that naturalized aliens should have those rights. I remember the case of a young child of German parentage coming with his parents to British Honduras, receiving his education in the schools of British Honduras, becoming

Naturalization Act
a member of the legislature of that colony, and subsequently becoming the acting governor of the colony, a man of the utmost probity and ability. He happened to pass across the border into a neighbouring state, and there he was seized upon and placed in gaol, and upon his appeal to the British government for the assistance of British diplomacy, under the circumstances, this man, who had been the representative of the sovereign in his own colony, was refused by the British government the right to ask for their intercession in the premises because, although a British citizen within the territory of British Honduras, he was not a British subject and a British citizen outside of that territory. That and many other similar instances led the imperial conference of 1902 to discuss the matter. Later it was considered at the imperial conference of 1907, and again at the imperial conference of 1911, in which the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier participated. That conference of 1911, while protesting against the proposed legislation as laid before it at that date, under which imperial legislation with respect to naturalization would apply to the dominions, nevertheless agreed-by mutual agreement between the dominions, each legislature in its own behalf insisting upon its own autonomy-that the alien who obtained Canadian citizenship, for instance, within Canada, should have the right of British citizenship throughout the empire. That compromise was embodied in the act of 1914 of the British parliament, which was thereafter adopted by each of the parliaments of the British dominions. So that our autonomy was not interfered with in any way, but these several dominions, by agreement among themselves, by associating together and adopting the same stipulations, agreed, so long as those same conditions might exist, that we in Canada by conferring Canadian naturalization upon any alien would at the same time give to that alien the rights of a British citizen in Australia, the rights of a British citizen in South Africa, the rights of a British citizen in Great Britain and in all her colonies and possessions. Therefore, at the present moment it seems to me that we should not depart in any way, except under absolute necessity, from the agreement which the associated dominions and Great Britain then came to, which was embodied in the imperial act of 1914, and in the bill submitted to this parliament in 1914; because we are now entering upon the consideration of a large sphere of subjects of inter-imperial interest, in which such association and such general agreement must be arrived at in order to ensure the continued association of the dominions, and the maintenance of the rights of citizens of one dominion within the territory of another as well as within Great Britain.
If we were merely legislating to-day with regard to the naturalization of aliens in Canada, certain considerations would apply. It may be necessary, in order that naturalized citizens may have the right to -land titles, perhaps to the franchise and other local privileges, that we should again maintain in a separate classification those who are admitted to Canadian citizenship but who are not admitted to British citizenship throughout the dominions of the empire. But when we amend this act in the form in which the present proposed amendments are brought down we are not only legislating for the admission of aliens domiciled or resident in Canada to the rights of Canadian citizenship within the territorial limits of Canada, but we are legislating. under the reciprocal agreement with Great Britain and the reciprocal legislation passed by the dominions since 1914, to admit those naturalized aliens, domiciled and resident in Canada, into British citizenship, into Australian citizenship, into citizenship in the South African state, into citizenship in Newfoundland and in every other dominion or colony.
If you will look at the statistics you will find that I am within the limit, I think, when I say that the aliens admitted to citizenship in Canada annually aggregate in number about four times the number of aliens admitted to British citizenship throughout all the rest of the British Empire. The reason was explained by one of my hon. friends in the debate of yesterday, that very few aliens go in to take up their residence in Australia, or in South Africa or in New Zealand. But in Canada we are offering very great inducements to immigrants from foreign states. We are putting forth efforts in that direction which are unequalled by all the other British dominions. Therefore it behooves us, I think, to consider not only that we are admitting these aliens as Canadian citizens, but that under a reciprocal arrangement made with the sister dominions and Great Britain we are admitting them to rights and privileges, which are highly prized by many of us, of British citizenship throughout the whole British Empire. Consequently we should proceed with a certain degree of care and circumspection.
It seems to me as the debate proceeded that the difficulties to which the hon. Secretary
Naturalization Act

of State referred, and which apply almost exclusively to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, might be remedied if the justices of a lower class in those provinces, especially in the remote sections, were permitted to make the examinations and reports now made by the judges of a higher court. I do not know sufficiently the local arrangements in those provinces, but I understand there are district magistrates in almost every remote icom-munity, and if not- there are at least justices of the peace, two of whom might act, and who under the criminal jurisdiction now exercise large powers in those remote districts. While I grant that every opportunity should be given to those residing there to become Canadian citizens^ and British subjects, I think the difficulties mentioned by the Secretary of State might be obviated in the manner I have suggested.
I remember the debate that took place in 1914, because as a student of this matter from early days I took a great interest in those negotiations. In Great Britain the power to refuse a certificate to an applicant for naturalization, which has vested in the Home Secretary since 1844, was exercised, as one hon. gentleman said, for diplomatic purposes. Very few people have been naturalized in Great Britain. From the earliest times up to 1844, when the king in the exercise of his prerogative could accept the allegiance of a foreigner and grant him naturalization, the status of a British subject was regarded as a very high and unusual privilege. In 1844 Great Britain, with that diplomatic subtlety for which she is distinguished, vested in the Home Secretary the absolute right of refusal to grant naturalization, so that the government, without enacting invidious distinctions as between aliens, might through the exercise of this discretion by the Home Secretary, effect its purpose without giving any excuse for its action.
Now, the imperial act of 1914, the framework of which to a large extent was in accordance with the suggestions made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the colonial conference of 1911, sought to maintain and preserve the autonomy of this country. This framework was agreed upon in negotiations between Canada, Great Britain and the other dominions, and the form in which it was submitted to this parliament in 1914 reserved to the Secretary of State of Canada the right to refuse naturalization to any alien. But that right was so vested for a particular purpose-so that the government through him might refuse to certain alien races the right to become naturalized Canadian citizens, without making invidious distinctions by statute which might prove irri-
tating to other races in various parts of the world with whom we must preserve at least a certain degree of amity. But that statute of 1914 did provide for a preliminary examination into the qualifications of the applicant by a judge, who decided whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to become a Canadian citizen and a British subject. This removed from a political authority such as the Secretary of State and placed under a judicial tribunal the duty of investigating and the right of deciding whether applications for naturalization should be granted.
I do not wish to go into this at length but if my hon. friends will look at the debates of May, 1914, and particularly at pages 4146, 4179 and 4181, they will find that Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the strongest possible pronouncement against the Secretary of State, under the draft bill then before the house, exercising any discretion whatever in the matter, except that diplomatic discretion which it was deemed necessary to vest in him, in case certain exceptional difficulties arose, to refuse naturalization, and so avoid diplomatic conversations with foreign states. For instance, with regard to the exercise of those powers by the Secretary of State, Sir Wilfrid said:
If a man applies to a judge for a certificate, and a neighbour comes and says that he is not of good character, that he is a fugitive from justice, or has been liable to police punishment, the judge is bound to take cognizance of those matters and refuse the certificate. But wliat we object to is the vesting of such a discretion in a man who is not a judicial officer, but who has political responsibility only. I quite conceive there are many occasions when a discretionary power has to be exercised by the Secretary of State, but the possession of such power is always liable to very serious abuses.
He made an even stronger statement at page 4179. In moving to strike out the clause of the bill of 1914 which gave this discretion to the Secretary of State, the clause which now appears in the act, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
In other words-
After quoting the section.
-you provide machinery for aliens who desire to become citizens, but when the alien passes through that machinery, when he has gone before the judge and has the judge's decision that naturalization should be granted him, the Secretary of State may, without reason given and without possibility of appeal, deny him that privilege. The reasons given for this by the Minister of Justice yesterday do not seem to me to be adequate. I understand him to say that there may be cases in which, for reasons which cannot be told, it may be conducive to the public welfare that a man should not be given naturalization.

Naturalization Act
That was the class of cases to which the Minister of Justice of that day, Hon. Mr. Doherty, had referred. There might be a Japanese, a Chinese, a Hottentot or a person of some other nationality who might qualify under the statute, and who might be able to speak either English or French; moreover, he might have had residence in this country for a term of years, yet it might be advisable in the public interest to exclude him. Sir Wilfrid goes on to say:
In other words, you re-establish in the hands of the Secretary of State the power which at one time was held by the King of England but which no longer exists. I do not know any justification for that. This section provides that a man must be of good character in order to be naturalized and when he establishes his good character before the judge I do not see why he should not be naturalized.
And then, referring again to the same subject, Sir Wilfrid at page 4181 says, as to the powers of the Secretary of State:
He can do as was done for some time in England before the law of 1844 passed, when naturalization would be granted to some rich Jew, to a foreign prince, or to an important personage from a foreign country. But it will not be King George IV as it was in the days of old-it will be King Louis Coderre-
Referring to the then Secretary of State. -who will grant the naturalization to anybody he pleases. I move that this section be also struck out.
Now, lying at the basis of that whole discussion was the apprehension on the part of Sir Wilfrid that if the entire machinery of investigating applications for naturalization in Canada were placed within the control of the head of a political department it would give rise to the suspicion and the fear that from time to time the political heads would use that power for strictly partisan purposes. If you read these debates you will see that Sir Wilfrid, of all men, insisted that there should be a judicial inquiry. He interpreted the law as it then passed to mean that the procedure enacted by the 1914 act was binding upon the Secretary of State, and that, preliminary to the exercise of any discretion by the Secretary of State, there would be findings and decisions by a judge, after due inquiry in which all parties would be heard. And he felt that that judicial inquiry, to a very considerable extent, withdrew from the political head, the Secretary of State, the exercise of his discretion of admitting all foreigners who claimed qualification under the act. But it did not take from the Secretary of State the power to refuse, for high motives of political policy, the admission of some who may have been qualified under the act,
and who may have been passed by the judge of the court to which application was first made.
Then, in order to remove similar apprehensions to-day, in order that my hon. friends opposite may adhere to the policy so clearly announced by their esteemed leader in past days, it seems to me that they might attain that which they desire to attain, they might remove those difficulties which are now obvious in certain unsettled parts of the provinces of the middle west, by authorizing some minor judicial authority to undertake a judicial inquiry in those remote districts, and at the same time place it, at least apparently, beyond the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State to admit thousands of people wholesale on his mere ipse dixit, and upon an inquiry made by him alone.
There is no difficulty in a city like Montreal. I do not know the statistics, but I venture tire suggestion that in the city of Montreal we admit as many aliens to citizenship within a year-on the average-as are admitted in either of the provinces of the middle west. While I have the greatest confidence in the Secretary of State I should not like, when I am running an election in my own constituency, if ever I should again run an election in St. Lawrence-St. George, to have the Secretary of State, thirty or sixty days before the election, admit a thousand or two persons there, on his own ipse dixit, thus increasing the electoral lists of the St. Lawrence or the St. George subdivisions. A judicial inquiry such as is prescribed gives all confidence to the other dominions that we are living up to the very essence of the agreement which was made between the associated dominions and Great Britain in 1914.


Samuel William Jacobs: In what other country of
the British Empire is a judicial inquiry insisted upon?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In no other country. In
Canada we have insisted upon it simply because we in Canada are admitting, year by year, to Canadian and British citizenship, four times as many people as are admitted by Great Britain and all the other dominions together. Admissions are very few and exceptional in Great Britain to-day in proportion to its population.


Samuel William Jacobs: But is it a question of
numbers?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is a question of numbers, because the fact that 17,000 are admitted on the average each year to Canada-this has
Naturalization Act

been the average in recent years-precludes any satisfactory inquiry being made by the Secretary of State as an officer of the government. But the judicial inquiry does distribute among the courts of the country the duty and responsibility of investigating applications. Look at the sections of our act which it is proposed to repeal at the present time. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I think, in the discussions that took place on the subject, regarded them as the safeguard of the system, giving confidence to the people in this country that aliens were not being improperly admitted wholesale. Prior to our act of 1914, the act in the revised statutes of 1906 as amended by the subsequent act of 1907 did not state in such clear and positive terms that the judge of the court should investigate and make a decision. At that time in Canada there was a great deal of dissatisfaction in both political parties with the way in which that act was being administered, and it was then felt that a larger duty should be placed upon the judge. Therefore section 22 of the act of 1914 provides:
An alien desiring to be naturalized shall apply for a decision establishing that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this act to any judge. . . .
And so on. That placed upon the judge the duty of ascertaining from the evidence before him not only the qualifications under certain sections of the act but the general fitness of the applicant to be naturalized under the provisions of the act. Then section 25 said:
The applicant shall produce to the court such evidence, that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this act, as the court may require. . . .


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend know
that that evidence is produced by the department of the Secretary of State?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have seen many of these
cases. I am not in any position to make this statement with the accuracy of the Secretary of State, but in hundreds of cases of naturalization in our Montreal courts the Secretary of State never hears of them until after the decision of the judge is given, and of course I am dealing with the Secretary of State personally in that case.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my bon. friend will
allow me, that is the very point I was trying to make last night. I repeat what I then said, that in every case a copy of the application sent to the court is at once sent to the department, and the department immediately starts an investigation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am glad to hear that, but
I am sure that in many cases these investigations prove most futile. I have seen applications made by the score to the judges of our courts in Montreal when the only evidence before the court was the application itself and such witnesses as the applicant produced to give evidence as to his qualifications and fitness. I have been present in court many times, but as far as I remember attention never was called to any special report from the department of the Secretary of State dealing with the matter, as being evidence pertinent to the inquiry which the judge was conducting. That is as far as I go. Of course I know that the Secretary of State receives a copy of these applications but I did not know that in every case he immediately began an inquiry. I am sure that is a new method which perhaps my hon. friend has inaugurated.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No. that has been the
practice of the department right along. When the department receives the report from the court, by the inquiry which has been conducted by the department itself we are in a position to pronounce on the case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand. Have I the
correct interpretation of my hon. friend's statement when I say that the inquiry which is started by the minister is not really for the purpose of submitting evidence to the judge but for the purpose of enabling the minister to exercise his ministerial discretion when the report of the judge reaches him?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is the point exactly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I undertand the case, and we are not apart at all. I have always understood that, but my point is that the wide discretion given to the minister under the act as a matter of public policy was given to him not that he should take the place of the judge, not that he should make an inquiry similar to the judicial inquiry which takes place before the judge but to enable him as a high officer of the crown, exercising the ancient prerogative right of the crown to admit aliens to allegiance, to determine whether there were objections of high policy to the admission to British citizenship of certain peoples whom we have not been wont to admit to citizenships in this country although they may be able to speak English or French and may possess the residence qualification. Now the minister is changing the w'hole policy, apparently; instead of retaining the exercise of that high discretion as a part of the prerogative right of the crown, he is making himself and his appointees the

Naturalization Act
instruments of inquiry and investigation, and is usurping to that extent the functions which have been previously exercised by the courts of the land.


The CHAIRMAN (Sir Eugene Fiset):: The hon. gentleman's time is up.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The hon. member
for St. Lawrence-St. George has been urging that we in Canada should live up to the agreement made with the other British countries. I do not believe there is anything in the proposed legislation which would tend to violate that agreement. It is now proposed merely to change the method by which we ascertain whether or not a man is qualified for naturalization, and notwithstanding some statements which have been made the hon. gentleman must admit that the method existing in other British dominions is that of investigation by the department of the Secretary of State, so in adopting legislation of this character in reality we are falling in line with the methods used in other British dominions and in the motherland as well.
The hon. member suggests that on account of the differences existing in Canada we should have another method, and I quite agree that possibly this may be so. I believe we should consider these matters on their merits as they apply to Canada, rather than consider conditions which exist with regard to the Hottentots or some other race in another part of the world. In fact, I find it a little difficult to get back to the actual realities in Canada after having listened for forty minutes to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
The hon. gentleman has been talking about diplomatic considerations, and has been explaining to us how a man who could qualify under the statute might not be allowed to become naturalized because of matters of high political policy. That might be in accordance with diplomatie practice, but I would rather be inclined to urge that individuals w'ho can qualify under our statutes by all means should be permitted to enjoy the rights which are there provided. I think we have found ourselves in all kinds of trouble through these devious methods of preventing people from getting what they have every right to expect. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has gone back to 1844 and has dealt with the question of how a foreign prince might have bestowed upon him the high privilege of becoming a British subject. I submit that we are a long way from England in 1844.
We are receiving hundreds of thousands of immigrants. We are spending millions of dollars in trying to bring immigrants in. We are offering them inducements to come, in the way of free homesteads. Our regulations, however, provide for naturalization, and I submit we are not keeping faith with those whom we are inviting to come to this country unless we make it possible for them to qualify in order that they may receive free homesteads and in order that they may enter into the full rights of Canadian citizenship.
I quite admit that our naturalization must be safeguarded, but I am firmly convinced that there is more danger of shutting people out from naturalization than there is of admitting too many of them to naturalization. We have definite rules and statutes governing the classes of people who are to be admitted to naturalization. We are not discussing these at the present time; we are discussing merely the most desiraJble method by which such naturalization may be granted. Let us consider the actual situation in respect to these hundreds of thousands of people who are coming to our shores. If we deny them naturalization we postpone for them any opportunity of participating in our common political life. Sometimes there are those in this house who object to what is known in industrial circles as "direct action"; they say that these men ought never to strike. They say that these men who are out of work ought never to parade. If you deny to them the rights of citizenship, if you deny to them the right of endeavouring to bring about desired reforms by means of constitutional action, can you wonder that sometimes they are driven to take unconstitutional action? Surely we must admit that the strongest safeguard we can have in this country-if we believe in democracy at all-is to have the freest participation by all in our common national life, and if we deny to these people who come to our shores-people who are not criminals by any means, people who come from countries which are just as high in the political scale as our own-if we deny to them the right to participate in our national life we are only laying up to ourselves trouble in the years to come. We must not be placed in the position of urging people to come in, of promising certain things when they do come, and then failing to keep faith with them. We do so at our risk.
I am not quite sure whether or not this proposed legislation is for the best, but I do know that the present arrangement is not at all satisfactory. I suppose we should not discuss here some of the questions that do not immediately come up for consideration. The
Naturalization Act

language question has been already referred to, and with regard to that I should like to say that, while I suppose it is a good thing for us to insist, in a general way, that immigrants should learn English or French, there are a good many people coming here who are well educated, but do not know and have no opportunity to learn English or French and I do not think we should be too rigid about those matters. Take one class of people, the Icelanders; they are years and years ahead of us in political consciousness and political education. For a thousand years they have had democratic political institutions. I know some of the .men who have come to this country in mature life who find it extremely difficult, when placed in remote places in the west, to learn the English language. I think it is a great hardship to prevent such people acquiring citizenship. I had an instance come to my knowledge in this connection, where an elderly Icelandic woman, who is well educated in her own language, has not been able to become naturalized; she is now seventy years of age and yet she is prevented from receiving an old age pension because of lack of naturalization. I think that is a great hardship. She has done much pioneer work in the west. I think it is stupid, if not indeed cruel, to prevent her being naturalized because of some technical requirement.
It has been stated that our practice is uniform, because in every case the judges have to deal with this matter. I would suggest that the lack of uniformity is one of the reasons why some of us would like to see the act changed. Judges have been very arbitrary, in some cases that I have known, in refusing to grant naturalization certificates. They themselves, in my judgment are prejudiced. They have the right to their own opinions, but they are personally very much prejudiced against certain types of foreigners; in some cases it is against orientals, in others it is against Greeks and Italians, and they have absolutely refused to grant naturalization to people >of these nationalities. I cannot think that is a good thing. I number among my own friends people of these nationalities, people who stand just as high in the social scale as people we meet in this parliament. Why should they be refused naturalization because some ignorant judge, and there are some such, or some prejudiced judge, and there are some such, has decided not to admit foreigners? If we ask aliens to come to this country we must be prepared to go through with the undertaking and see that they are incorporated into the life of this country.

It, has been suggested that complaints come only from a few districts. Personally I have comparatively few newly arrived foreigners in my own constituency, but during the last few years I have had the opportunity of lecturing to labour groups pretty much across Canada, and from Glace Bay, Montreal, Toronto, Fort William, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, all through the Crowsnest right through to Vancouver, I have had the frequent experience that men of foreign extraction would come to me after my lecture and say, How can we become Canadian citizens? We have been here five, ten or fifteen years but we have no opportunity of becoming Canadian citizens. I have made inquiries in some cases, and it is true that some of these men have had police records; and I have lived long enough among the immigrants to know that it is very easy for a foreigner to acquire a police record. He may have broken a municipal ordinance-and it is very easy for a new arrival to break one of these ordinances -and then he acquires a police record. Or one of them may have taken part in a strike and some charge have been laid against him, and although that took place ten, fifteen or twenty years ago it has been recorded against him and prevents him becoming a Canadian citizen. I have investigated some of these cases and have found that they stand high in the local community; I could produce certificates from reputable citizens of iall classes in the community, that these immigrants are in every way qualified for naturalization, but nothing can be done under the existing arrangements. That means that there is a bitter feeling growing up on the part of thousands of people who otherwise might become good Canadian citizens.
I venture to suggest to the minister an amendment that I think would be desirable if legislation such as he proposes is to be carried. There might be a danger that the Secretary of State might alct in an arbitrary manner, not merely that he might be willing to naturalize thousands of people, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has suggested, but on the other hand that he might be inclined to deny citizenship to others who have a perfect right to it. Therefore I would suggest that provision should be made in his bill for some sort of a court of appeal. If the Department of the Secretary of State, betaause of an adverse report concerning a man, refuses to grant naturalization, I would say that if the man himself or anyone opposed to the man's naturalization wants to appeal against the decision there should be some place where such an appeal could be

Naturalization Act
heard. It might be an appeal to the Secretary of State himiself who might send out a commissioner to hold some sort of public investigation. Edmonton, Saskatoon and other cities in the west are a long way from Ottawa and you cannot expect the ordinary citizen, whether he be a workingman. or a farmer, to come down to Ottawa. If he has to employ the services of a lawyer that means a considerable expense. He ought to have the right of stating his case before a final decision bjr the Secretary of State. It might be that a minor official has made a mistake. Surely the man ought to have the right to appeal to a commissioner or judge who might be sent out or selected in the district to hold a public hearing. In that way the interests of the public as a whole would be safeguarded. Such an appeal should be granted either when the complaint came from the mian who felt that he was not being given a fair chance or from the community who felt that the department of the Secretary of State had made a mistake.
At the present time investigations are made by the mounted police, and so far as I can see the proposal is that that duty will still be expected of them. Personally I want to enter a protest against that procedure. To a great many people the police are people who come to protect their homes, but to other classes in the community they are officials who miay be coming to cause their arrest. Away out on the plains of Saskatchewan when a policeman appears at the home of a private individual the opinion generally gets abroad that there is something wrong at that home; that the officer is there to investigate; that the settler may be suspected of bootlegging or something of that kind, and people do not like that. Some hon. member says: "No." I know enough about the prairies to' know that is a very common sentiment among certain classes of most reputable people. I believe the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) said that some people had the same feeling about going to the courts. Ordinary people do not go to the courts unless they are forced to go there in connection with some trouble. It may be all very well for lawyers to sit here and say that the courts are the great safeguard of our liberties. The courts are very profitable for them; they enjoy being around the courts, but for many people the courts mean places in which they are mulcted of their hard-earned money. A court means a place where they may get into trouble and which they want to avoid as far as possible.
I would suggest that citizenship is not in the nature of a crime. I hope the time will come 56103-166
when the duty of policemen will not be largely to suppress crime but rather to do everything possible in the interest of the public. When. I see a policeman doing point duty, safeguarding little children as they cross the street. I see exemplified the ideal with regard to a police force which I should like to have generally adopted. But I conceive that is not the ideal most people have to-day with regard to the police and under existing circumstances it would seem to be wise that someone other than a policeman should be used to make these investigations. If a person has a criminal record, by all means have a policeman investigate ; but if there is no criminal record and if Canadian citizenship is a high estate to which the applicant seeks to secure admission, the least we can do is to send to him someone who will not in any way be associated in his mind with crime.
I offer what may seem a very idealistic suggestion, but I have sometimes wondered whether it might not be well to have a little more ceremony connected with the admission ,to citizenship. I have sometimes considered whether we might not add real value to Dominion day if we would arrange that aliens might be admitted to full citizenship, say, on Dominion day, or on some other fixed day when some little ceremonial could be connected with the matter. In that way naturalization would not be granted in a corner after investigation by a policeman as to whether or not the man was guilty of anything, but the new citizen would be made to feel that he was getting something worth while. I am suggesting Dominion day because it is the national holiday. We should say to these 'people: We grant you this Canadian citizenship ; and we might give them some little token in the way of a card or a medal or something of that kind .that would remind them of the occasion.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: They receive their papers.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not very much in favour myself, of ceremonial, but it is a big thing for an alien to have all the rights of Canadian citizenship.


Richard Bedford Bennett: British citizenship.


James Shaver Woodsworth: British citizenship, and while this may seem a little idealistic it might result in a great deal of good especially amongst people who come from countries where ceremonial is very common and where the populace revels in anything that involves a pageant.

Naturalization Act

I would however return to my main contention that the Secretary of State might consider the bringing in of some amendment by [DOT]which an appeal could be made to his department and an investigation held in the locality iwhere the applicant himself or the objectors .to the application might appear to state his or their side of the case.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: As one who homesteaded thirty years ago I must differ somewhat from the leader of the Labour party when he says that a mounted policeman is regarded by citizens as a man who is investigating a crime, and that if a policeman visists a home everybody thinks there must be something wrong with that home, or the policeman would not go there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I spoke particularly about Saskatchewan.


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to that libel on Saskatchewan I may say that the police have many times been dispenser's of various forms of relief. They have been very welcome too and no such slur has been cast upon households which they have visited.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: During the days of my homesteading in the district in which I laboured we were very glad to see the mounted policeman come along. He was our friend; he would inquire if there was any difficulty and he always helped us out. My purpose however in rising is to make a plea for the alien homesteader. I would not do away with the provision that the man, before he votes, must know the English language; but it is a hardship to an alien, after he is brought into this country, goes on the land, plugs away for five years, builds a house, stable and barns, grubs the roots out of the land and brings it into cultivation, to be told that before he can get his patent or deed for his land he must do something else, he must learn another language. That is not fair. After he has fulfilled his homestead duties you should give him his patent in order that he may be able to carry on. If he has not his deed he cannot mortgage his land, and he cannot come in under the Farm Loans Act. You tie him up, although he has earned and well earned that property. I think this restriction might very well be taken out of the Naturalization Act and put instead into the Elections Act, where you could provide that before a man should be entitled to vote he must be able to read and write one of the two official languages, and that should apply to Canadian settlers as well as to aliens. I have known Canadians many a

time, when I was in business in Ontario, who could not sign a receipt and had to mark a cross. I think the same qualifications for exercising the franchise should apply to Canadians as well as aliens, much more so in the case of the Canadian, who should be better able to read and write the English language than an alien. So I think we might very well consider in this act the granting of naturalization to aliens who have fulfilled their homestead duties and are of good character, and leave the question of being able to read and write the English language to be dealt with in the Elections Act. Then you do away with the discrimination, and you say to the settler, as you ought to do: After you have fulfilled your homestead duties, if you are of good character, we will grant you your patent and naturalization. I know that men who have lived in the frontier districts will endorse this statement, that the first five years are the hardest on the homestead. During the first five years of my life on the homestead I was fully occupied with my homestead duties, and if I had been told that I had not only to live on the homestead and fence and break thirty or forty acres, and have so many cattle, and build a house and barn, but must in addition learn the German language, I would have said: Take back your homestead, because learning a new language would have been harder to me than all the other work, and by the way, we did not say to these aliens when they came here from Hungary or Iceland or Norway: We will grant you a patent after you have finished your homestead duties and made a good citizen of yourself, and in addition you must learn a foreign language. That language qualification was not mentioned when they came here, and it is not fair to bring it up now.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I would like
to answer a remark made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), Mr. Chairman, and then I would ask you to call it six o'clock. The hon. member spoke of the feeling of the people of Saskatchewan towards the mounted police. As one born in that province and having lived there all my life, perhaps I can speak with some authority as to how our people feel about the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, now the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not think there is any class of citizen in the whole of Canada that is more looked up to by our western people than the Northwest mounted police ever since they were organized in 1872. When a policeman comes

Questions
to their doors, it is never thought by anyone that it is because of some wrong-doing that has been done, but it was the natural thing for these policemen to call at the homes of all the homesteaders in turn, to see if everything was going well with the homesteader, and if everything was not going well it was the duty of the policeman to report accordingly, and see that help was brought, doctors, nurses, and any other assistance that might be required, and that assistance was supplied by the Royal Northwest Mounted Police so far as possible. Therefore, I do not think that anj'body upon the prairies is at all adverse to having one of the riders of the plains come to his door. I have never seen one that objected. On the contrary, the policeman is always welcomed and invited in for a meal, and although the settler has the right to charge the man for a meal, in very few cases is that ever done. The people of Saskatchewan are proud of the Northwest mounted police, and they know that any job they are put at by the Secretary of State or by any department of the government will be looked after, and looked after well, by that splendid body of men.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 3, 1928