1946-05-03

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., B.A.. L.PIi.. PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1947
ILTtfc CCcvS
[Stage Direction]
House of
Commons Rebates
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 3, 1946.

THE LATE WALLACE REGINALD McDonald
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: 

EDITION

[Stage Direction]
32 S?7
The late W. R. McDonald
[Stage Direction]
sympathy which we have for her and for the members of her family in their great bereavement.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my privilege to have more than a passing acquaintance with the hon. member whose decease we mourn, but all of my colleagues who had come to know him well held him in high regard. One of the satisfying things in public life, and I have noticed it quite as much in the House of Commons as in any previous legislative body with which I have been associated, is that while we may have differences of opinion on public questions we still maintain our respect for those whose views we do not always share. Speaking for the members of this group as well as for myself we desire to be associated with the Prime Minister and other hon. members in the expression of sympathy to those who have been bereaved.


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: This is one of those sad occasions on which members of the house join together in mourning the loss of one of their colleagues; and we too of this group wish to extend our deepest sympathy to those whom the late W. R. McDonald has left behind him. I came here in 1935, the year in which Mr. McDonald also became a member. I have had contact with him throughout these years as a member of the house and its committees, and I was always impressed by his friendliness and his courtesy and kindliness. Although our views differed from his, he commanded our respect, and we sincerely mourn his passing.


Mr. SOLON LOW (Peace River):: It was not my good fortune to know personally the deceased hon. member for Pontiac, but those of my party who did know him have expressed themselves as happy in their association with him as recognizing in him a man of public service who was always ready to face realities honestly. We pay respect to his memory, and we join with the other hon. members in mourning his loss and extending to his family our deepest sympathy.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, for more than twenty-five years Mr. McDonald was a close friend of mine. I became acquainted with him when he was a member of the Chapeau school board and I was a school inspector. We therefore cooperated in increasing the efficiency of teaching in his district. Later, we became assocated in the campaigns of the party we were representing in the western part of the province.

The distinctive qualities of Mr. McDonald were his straightforwardness and his sincerity of purpose. No one will leave, in that part of the province of Quebec, a greater reputation of honesty in public life. The late lamented member always showed a thorough understanding of the needs of the people and his greatest desire was to help those who had few opportunities in life.
It is with a feeling of deep grief that we bow to-day before the grave of a man whose loss we sincerely lament and whom we shall never forget.
(Text):	;


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I should like to join with others in paying my tribute to the one we knew as "Wally" McDonald, because I was Protestant, he was Roman Catholic; because after coming to this house we were close neighbours; because we agreed on the essentials of the Christian life. I found that he had little patience with those who would raise religious or race prejudice. Time and again when we discussed the question of religion we were at one in the view that if we Protestants and Roman Catholic but agreed on the great essentials there would be a far greater approach to unity in Canada. He also assured me that the closer we all get to Him who is the source of truth the closer we shall get to each other. I would pay my tribute to him as a Christian. As he also told me, we grow like our parents, and very much depends on who our parents or our early guardians were as to which branch of the church gets us into the kingdom of heaven. I am sure we think to-day of Wally McDonald not as dead but as living, because he placed his trust in Him who can keep him alive.



PRIVILEGE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I notice that my hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, in addressing a large audience at Toronto last evening, was taking a shot in a number of directions-


Thomas Miller Bell: Several shots.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Among these, my hon. friend made a statement which I think, if not corrected by him, ought to be exposed, and I would therefore draw the attention of the house to what he said. Speaking of the recent meeting with the government of a delegation of the Canadian Congress of Labour my hon. friend said:
Canadian Citizenship
At a recent meeting between Prime Minister Mackenzie King and his cabinet and representatives of the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Prime Minister and the cabinet-
And these words are in quotation marks:
-walked out on delegates representing some 300,000 Canadian workers and their families.
If that is a correct quotation, may I say to my hon. friend that the statement itself is not correct. The last thing that was done was to walk out on the delegation. Statements were made in the representations of the delegation which I felt were untrue and the representations themselves were not expressed in the manner in which they should have been expressed, and which for this reason I thought were doing harm to the cause of labour itself. I therefore spoke plainly to the delegation on these particular aspects of their representations. But may I say to my hon. friend that after I had concluded speaking I and my colleagues waited until the secretary of the delegation, who wished to have the last word, made quite a lengthy reply, and then, bowing in a cordial manner to all present, I and my colleagues left the gathering. I hope my hon. friend will not try to create the impression that some 300,000 Canadian workers and their families were offended by my action in speaking in a kindly and fatherly way to that particular group.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction. Press reports indicate that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is about to take over two radio stations owned by the Manitoba government. If this be so, in view of the refusal of the Canadian Broadi-casting Corporation to issue a licence to the Saskatchewan government for a radio station, what change if any has taken place in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's policy in regard to ownership of radios, and for what reason?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: This question relates to broadcasting policy and should more properly be answered by the Minister of National Revenue. However, I can say the government has decided that, since broadcasting is the sole responsibility of the dominion government, broadcasting licences shall not be issued to other governments or corporations owned by other governments. In regard to the two stations in Manitoba, discussions are taking place with 63260-74 j
the government of that province which we hope will lead to the purchase of these two stations by the dominion government.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 2, consideration in committee of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, and naturalization and status of aliens-Mr. Martin-Mr. Golding in the chair.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The committee was considering section 21. Shall the section carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
On section 23-Citizenship of spouse or minor children.
Mr. FLEMING:: In line 31, subsection 2,
the power conferred on the governor in council is purely enabling. Is there any reason why the section should not be made mandatory instead of enabling or permissive?


Mr. MARTIN:: There is no change in
substance in this section and it is thought, in view of the experience we have had in the department, and the practice of other countries, that this is the best way to leave the matter.


Mr. GREEN:: If this section passes what
will the law be in regard to minor children? If the father loses Canadian citizenship, will the minor children also lose theirs? There seems to be some uncertainty in the wording of the section.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a question of discretion. There is a distinction, as regards the position of the wife or children, in cases where a second nationality is acquired and cases of automatic loss or revocation. Greater consideration is given in the latter case because there is a greater possibility that the child may not acquire any other nationality. Also, revocation and loss are in the form of punishment which should not be automatically visited upon the children, whereas a deliberate change of nationality is now in the nature of a voluntary transfer of allegiance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
On section 25-Saving of obligations incurred before loss of citizenship.
John George Diefenbaker: What is the purport of section 25, and what particular circumstances does it contemplate?
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would cover the case
where a person commits treason. He does not thereby become discharged from any obligation, duty or liability in respect of anything done or omitted before he ceased to be a Canadian subject. It means exactly what it says. Mere loss does not interfere with other obligations he may have incurred.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 26-Canadian citizen a British subject.
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I
should like to refer to a news item which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of April 6 having reference to the second reading in the British House of Commons of a bill with respect to British nationals. The article refers to this measure as the surrender of a small measure of sovereignty to the world peace organization. I quote:	*
The bill, which Philip Noel-Baker, minister of state, characterized as a modest step toward "effective machinery to stop aggression," empowers the government to impose on British subjects the duty of abiding by the rulings of the council involving severance of diplomatic and economic relations with other countries.
The measure thus gives effect to provisions of Article 41 of the charter signed by Britain which reads:	[DOT]
"The security council may decide what measures, not involving the use of armed forces, are to be employed to give effect to its decisions and it may call upon members of the united nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communications and severance of diplomatic relations."
We have arrogated to ourselves the right to decide who shall or shall not be British subjects, and I should like to know first of all whether this new British legislation affects us under section 26 of this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is no.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Then that is settled. I do not know, however, whether this country has the right to state who shall be a British subject. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I think we would have the right to decide as regards citizens in Canada only. I should like to know what the status of these citizens would be when they left Canada for a holiday or for business or for any other reason. Would1 they still be called British subjects? I doubt very much whether this government could legislate in that regard. In other words, I think the clause is ultra vires of the House of Commons, and so I intend to offer an amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the imperial conference of 1930 it was agreed that each dominion should have the right to do the very thing
that we have done here.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: We have the right to do that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No doubt about it.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Even so, I wish to move that section 26 be amended by striking out the words "British subject" and substituting therefor the words "subject of His Majesty as the sovereign of Canada." I do not wish to imply thereby that we are in any sense a nation inferior or subservient to the United Kingdom. Of course we are not; I do not think there is very much of the tinge of colonialism left in Canada as a whole. Nevertheless this would give stronger recognition to a fact which we have ourselves admitted for some time, that the king is indeed the king of Canada. In the past it has been agreed that in matters relating to the dominion the king acts separately for Canada. Indeed it was a Canadian order in council which gave consent, so far as we in Canada were concerned, to the British abdication act. Afterwards a special Canadian act was passed validating the change of succession, pointing out that we were dealing with the king as king in Canada. Most significant of all is that when we declared war in our own right on September 10, we did it by sending to the king of Canada a telegram containing the order in council and the king of Canada proclaimed that a state of war existed. Because of that I see no reason why we cannot recognize that fact in this bill. Therefore I strongly suggest to the committee that it accept the proposed amendment.


Mr. REID:: If this amendment is carried, how will it affect the status of persons coming to this country from Great Britain as British subjects?
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North)': They would still be British subjects. It would not affect them one iota.


Mr. MacINNIS:: It seems to me that when we are discussing the status of British subject we are unduly restricting the meaning of the term. As a Canadian citizen I am a British subject. If this bill is passed I hope I shall in no way be subservient to Great Britain. I believe that this bill implies that I as a Canadian citizen would have British subject rights not only in Canada but also in every other part of the British commonwealth, which is what is implied in the term "British sub-

Canadian Citizenship
ject." If that is so I do not see why we should limit our own rights in other parts of the British commonwealth, as I am inclined to think we should do if the bill were amended in the way suggested. I am not sure, but [DOT]that is the way it appears to me.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to ask the minister if there is the limitation that the hon. member for Vancouver East suggests. Is it not a fact that we are all subects of His Majesty the King, and tha't under the statute of Westminster and the development of our constitutional position the king is regarded as the king of the United Kingdom, a person; the king of Canada, a person; the king of South Africa, a person, and so on. In other words, there is a divisibility of the crown in that respect; but in the commonwealth we are all subjects of a common king. Therefore when we receive a passport, for example, it is His Majesty or his representative in Canada who prays another country or another government that we may be afforded all the privileges which the possession of such a passport gives to the holder of it. We have not the right, if I may put it that way, to say who shall be a British subject, but we have the right to say who shall be a subject of His Majesty the King, who is also king of the United Kingdom and of other parts of the British commonwealth. I am not wedded to any particular phraseology; none of us is. But I should like to see this bill worded in such a way as to indicate clearly the position which Canada occupies among the nations of the world, and the exact relationship that a Canadian citizen has to His Majesty the King. It seems to me that the phraseology suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North takes nothing from us as British subjects, takes nothing from us as subjects of His Majesty the King who is the common sovereign of all the people of all the nations of the British commonwealth, but on the other hand does confer something, because it confers upon a Canadian citizen the right of citizenship, and expresses his exact relationship to His Majesty the King and to the commonwealth of which the king is the common head.


Mr. HANSELL:: If the hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar is correct in his interpretation, then I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that he leave section 26 as it is and insert another section 27 and move the others on. I suggest that his amendment become section 27, which will read:
A Canadian citizen is a subject of His Majesty as the sovereign of Canada.
Does my suggestion meet with his approval? Does he want the term "British subject" cut out?


Mr. PINARD:: I think there is another
way-


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member should answer my question. If it is all right, go ahead.


Roch Pinard: There is another way to
solve the problem, namely, by giving a definition in this bill to a British subject. I have already on second reading of this bill given the reason why I cannot accept the principle contained in this section. I said then that this provision should be changed because we do not find anywhere in our statutes a definition of a British subject. It is true that we still have that definition contained in subsection (i) of section 2 of the Naturalization Act; but this act is to be repealed by section 45 of the bill, and with it. the only definition we ever possessed of a British subject will disappear from our statutes. Moreover, that definition of a British subject was introduced in our legislation in 1914, when we adopted the Naturalization Act. Such a definition could not be accepted to-day in Canada because it is not in accordance with our evolution and the progress we have made as a nation.
If that definition as it is were incorporated of the imperial conferences and the statute ignore the rights we have acquired as a result in the present citizenship bill it would simply of Westminster. It would be a definition which would render our legislation on citizenship retrogressive. Here is the definition in the Naturalization Act. It is contained in subsection (d):
"British subject" m,eans a person who is a natural born British' subject, or a person to whom a certificate of naturalization has been granted: or a person who has become a subject of His Majesty by reason of any annexation of territory.
We cannot be satisfied to-day with such an incomplete definition. I do not think that it is within the power of this parliament to define a British subject unless we define a British subject in Canada. Such definition could have been included in section 2 of this bill, and if this had been done I would have had no objection to section 26 as it is now drafted. Here is the way in which a British subject in Canada could have been defined for the purposes of this measure: "In this act, unless the context otherwise requires, a British subject means a subject of His Majesty in the right of Canada." In view of the fact, however, that in the present bill we have not been given any definition of a British subject and since our statutes do not
Canadian Citizenship

contain any such definition, I feel I must oppose section 26 as it now reads, because it seems to me illogical, useless, and, as was said before, ultra vires. This section should disappear or should be modified, as already suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and for this reason I will support his amendment.


Mr. BELZILE:: I wish to support the amendment presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Firstly: It is to conform to every document pertaining to the constitution of this country. I have tried very hard to find in the constitutional acts of Canada any reference to the words "British subject" and I must say I have not been able to do so. I do not mean that my search was necessarily complete, but I found that such a person as a British subject did not exist before 1914. As a matter of fact the very first reference to the status of a subject in Canada was made in the capitulation of Montreal in 1760. All my references to the documents concerning the Canadian constitution are from the work by Mr. W. P. M. Kennedy, published by the Oxford Press in 1928. Here is what I find in article XLI of the capitulation of Montreal. The Marquis de Vaudreuil asked that: "The French, Canadians and Acadians, of what state soever, who shall remain in the colony, shall not be forced to take arms against His Most Christian Majesty, or his allies, directly or indirectly, on any occasion whatsoever; the British government shall only require of them an exact neutrality."
In reply to that request, General Murray said: "They become subjects of the king." This is the first mention in a very long series of texts in the same terms. In article IV of the Treaty of Paris in February, 1763, which appears at page 15 of the volume already mentioned, I find this:
Moreover. His Most Christian Majesty cedes and guarantees to his said Britannic Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its dependencies [DOT] [DOT] . and all rights acquired by treaty, . . . over the said countries, lands, islands, places coasts and their inhabitants ... His Britannid Majesty on his side agrees to grant the liberty ot the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada: he will, in consequence, give the most precise and most effectual orders, that his new Koman Catholic subjects may profess the worship ot their religion . . . and so on. Later, on October 7, 1763, in the royal proclamation delivered to the inhabitants of Canada, I find this, appearing at page 19 of this volume:
And whereas it will greatly contribute to the speedy settling our said new government, that our loving subjects should be informed of our paternal care . . .
Then in the ordinance establishing civil courts, in 1764, here is what is said:

Whereas it is highly expedient and necessary, for the well governing of His Majesty's good subjects of the province of Quebec . . .
In a judgment rendered in the case of Campbell v.' Hall, on November 20, 1774, Lord Mansfield stated the status in the following manner:
1. A country conquered by the British arms becomes a dominion of the king in the right of his crown, and therefore necessarily subject to the legislative power of the parliament of Great Britain.
[DOT] 2' C0niuered inhabitants once received into the conqueror's protection become subjects, and are universally to be considered in that light, not as enemies or aliens.
3. Articles of capitulation, upon which the country is surrendered, and treaties of peace by which it is ceded, are sacred and inviolate, according to their true intent and meaning.
So it was right after the cession. In the Quebec act of 1774 I find another mention in Article V:
And, for the more perfect security ... it is hereby declared that His Majesty's subjects
There is the word again; and in Article VIII:	*
* [DOT] [DOT] all His Majesty's Canadian subjects, within the province of Quebec . . .
In the instructions to Carleton by the king in 1775 I find this; that he should proceed to the establishment of courts, and so on-
. . . that our Canadian subjects should have the benefit and use of their own laws . . .
I come now to the constitutional act of 1791, which is at page 208 of this volume, referring to the constitution of the legislative council, and here is what it says:
Provided always . . . that no person shall be summoned . . . who shall not be of the full age of twenty-one years, and a natural born subject of His Majesty, or a subject of His Majesty naturalized by act of the British parliament, or a subject of His Majesty having become such by the conquest and cession of the province of Canada.
So the words "subject of His Majesty" come up again. Then in the union act of 1840, which is at page 538 of the volume, dealing with the qualifications of legislative councillors, I find this:
Provided always that no person shall be summoned to the said legislative council . . . who shall not be of the full age of twenty-one years, and a natural born subject of Her Majesty, or a subject of Her Majesty naturalized by act of the parliament of Great Britain, or by act of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or by an act of the legislature of either of the provinces of Upper or Lower Canada, or by an act of the legislature of the province of Canada.
Last, but not least, comes the British North America Act. There is no special definition, of course, of "British subject" in that act. But looking at the qualifications for a senator,
I find that a senator shall be a natural-bom subject of the queen, or a subject of the
Canadian Citizenship
queen, naturalized by act of parliament of Great Britain, or the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and so on. So I can say there is no reference to "British subject" in any of the acts which have gone to form a constitution of Canada.
Secondly: It gives a clear definition of Canadian citizenship. After listening to the many speeches delivered by hon. members since the beginning of this discussion, I came to the conclusion that many of the members were not speaking of exactly the same thing when they referred to a British subject. For instance, the hon. member for Vancouver South, as reported at page 615 of Hansard, spoke of "commonwealth citizenship". Then the hon. member for Broadview, as reported at page 599 of Hansard said:
I am a Canadian, but I also am a British subject. They are both the same and always have been.
The same hon. member at page 600:
We all owe allegiance to one sovereign and one empire.
That means empire citizenship. Later the hon. member for Kamloops is reported in this way at page 625 of Hansard, when he referred to what he considered a misconception of what is involved in the expression "British subject":
Being a British subject . . . means nothing more or less than being a citizen of the British empire.
And at page 626 he adds:
It simply means that we have all the advantages of citizenship in a larger and more widespread organization as well. We are citizens of Canada, subjects of His Majesty, and we are citizens of the British commonwealth.
' And I could agree with that opinion.
And again at page 628:
At present we have an empire citizenship.
So after speaking about British commonwealth citizenship he returns to empire citizenship.
A third expression of opinion makes reference to "our kith and kin", the exponents of which obviously have in mind the inhabitants of the British isles, and their racial descendants, and no other species of the king's subjects whatsoever. It is the type of reference mentioned in Saturday Night of April 20. A fourth kind of citizenship was made abundantly clear to me during the debate on the Japanese problem, and the deportation of Canadian citizens of Japanese descent.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a question?
Does the hon. member not think that in addition to a Canadian citizenship there is some value in having a commonwealth citizenship?


Gleason Belzile: Of course. I have just
said I could agree with the hon. member for Kamloops when he said that we are citizens of Canada, subjects of His Majesty and citizens of the British commonwealth. But as we cannot get the real meaning of the words "British subject", which are not defined in the act, I do not agree with anybody, yet.
I think we must first have a complete definition of all the advantages and obligations entailed in that status.
It is a well established principle in all British institutions that there should be no rights without corresponding obligations, no privileges without equal duties, and no advantages without equal ties. Canada as a nation has always refused to recognize any imperial ties, any commonwealth obligations, and this has been confirmed by the statute of Westminster. I am afraid that the retention of the status of "British subject" might impose certain obligations with respect to the commonwealth, and form certain ties with the empire. I humbly submit that our only obligation should be an allegiance to the crown. For these reasons I shall support the amendment.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I answer the hon. member for Macleod? I am as jealous as anyone of the status of "British subject", but I do not think my amendment takes away from that position. Rather it adds to it, in the sense that, as well as British subjects, we shall be subjects of His Majesty as the King of Canada. And if the minister's contention is correct, namely that section 26 is intra vires of the parliament of Canada, then I should be quite willing to have my amendment moved as a new section.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I rise to support this
amendment, which meets with my entire approval. I thought of it myself before discussing the matter with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.	_	_
To my mind the term "British subject" is somewhat misleading. It is true that many hon. members, including the Secretary of State, take the view that it simply means "subject of His Majesty". My knowledge of constitutional law is so limited that I would not dare disagree with my friend of the bar. On the other hand for the man on the street the term 'British subject" means a subject of Great Britain, just as surely the term Italian means a subject of Italy, and the term Belgian a subject of Belgium. I dare say that the mass of Canadians, and particularly those who are not of Anglo-Saxon stock, take the view that a British subject means a subject

Canadian Citizenship
of Great Britain. The fact that this view was challenged in the house by the Secretary of State and the hon. member for Eglinton establishes conclusively that the interpretation of the man on the street must be held by a number of people. The fact that another interpretation has been given by those hon. members will not, I feel, affect public thinking very materially.
Why not, then, when this bill it before the committee, take advantage of the opportunity to clear up any possible misunderstanding? If the term British subject*5 means simply a subject of His Majesty the King, what possible injury can there be to stating it clearly? Why not call a spade a spade?
I am not going to attempt to make a legal argument at this time. After the rebuke the legal profession got yesterday from the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and in the other place from the premier of Prince Edward Island, one would be well advised to tread other ground. I am going to follow another line of reasoning which I hope will appeal to hon. members.
My two boys, aged five and seven, are proud to wear suits made from my old clothes. I presume most boys who are not too sophisticated feel the same way about this time-honoured custom.	I anticipate
however that before many years they will take the view that they are too old to be subject to such practice, and no doubt they will suggest that the old clothes be used by the younger brothers. Whether or not the other countries of the commonwealth have grown enough to wear new clothes of their own is for them, and them alone, to decide. Personally, I feel that this country is old enough and has sufficiently proved its maturity during two wars to justify its position and insist on wearing distinctive garments in the matter of a distinctive Canadian citizenship and a thoroughly distinctive Canadian flag. Just as the father, whose grown up son wants to wear new clothes, will admit the fairness of his son s request, and refuse to interpret his action as a decrease of filial love, in like manner Great Britain, I am sure, does and will recognize the reasonableness of our point of view as a young nation and refuse to interpret our gesture as irreverential.
I have always understood that the Anglo-Saxon people are practical business men, possibly the shrewdest in the world. Those of my cultural group are considered more sentimental. I do not mean that the Anglo-Saxons are not emotional, and that the French have no business acumen. The fact remains, however, that Great Britain understands particularly well the language of dollars 
and cents, and judging by what we did for ourselves during the last session, even members of parliament understand the language of dollars and cents. All this, Mr. Chairman, leads to the point which I wish to make, in all earnestness, seriousness and good faith, namely, that Great Britain is much more vitally concerned about the loans from Canada and the United States, and quite correctly so, than about nationalist bills of small consequence, as referred to by the Ottawa Journal. Assuming that we adopt this amendment, and adopt a truly distinctive flag, and make the loan of one billion and a quarter dollars to Great Britain, the sum total, in my opinion, will be a considerable strengthening of our ties to Great Britain, and this will prevail for the next fifty-five years whether we want it or not. I do not believe that there is anybody in this house, even among the young ultranationalists, who does not wish the fullest measure of cooperation with Great Britain, and the other really democratic countries of the world.
May I avail myself of this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to make an appeal to those who seem unduly concerned about the nature of our relationship with Great Britain and other countries of the commonwealth?
Shortly after parliament convened in March an hon. member of the group opposite, for whom I have a great deal of consideration but who is particularly concerned about the fate of Great Britain, asked me what would be the attitude of the Quebec members on the loan to Great Britain. When I assured him that not more than five or six members would oppose the measure from this side of the house, he appeared to be greatly relieved and personally, I was pleased to have so easily allayed his fears. I mention this incident en passant to point out that very often some members opposite-probably as a result of reading a press that is not always too sympathetic-get unduly concerned about the attitude of Quebec. I feel that I know that province far better than hon. gentlemen opposite, and I wish to assure them that they need fear nothing sinister on the part of Quebec.
In the course of the present and past session numerous appeals have come, mostly from the Progressive Conservative members, urging a greater degree of national unity in this country. It was apparent to me that those appeals were directed mostly to the Quebec people through their duly elected representatives in this house. A foreigner listening to such appeals might very easily come to the conclusion that this country is handicapped by a very serious lack of national unity, particularly

Canadian Citizenship
along cultural lines-and I use the word "cultural" purposely. There is hardly any difference between the members of this house over racial matters; our differences are mostly cultural.
Frankly, I do not believe this country is more divided along any line of thought than any other country in the world. At the same time, one must admit there are a number of matters of national interest about which there exists a wide divergence- of views. We have an example of that right in the senate to-day. There is also a great divergence of opinion, for instance, on the amount of controls we should retain in this post-war period; on the attitude of the government towards labour and labour relations; on monetary policies; on the extent of government interference with private enterprise; on external affairs; on the extent to which we should assert our sovereignty.
On all but the last mentioned of these matters on which public opinion is divided-, the cleavage is definitely not along cultural lines. On this latter issue, however, it would seem that my compatriots of French descent, together with members of the -C.C.F. party, are prepared to go somewhat farther than most of the Progressive Conservatives and- the Social .Creditors. Every time the so-called ultra-nationalist group take- a stand towards a more distinctive Canadian attitude on public matters, there are some members of the house who take the view that somebody is endeavouring to weaken our ties with Great Britain and the other countries of the commonwealth. This talk of weakening our ties with the countries of the commonwealth does not come from this side of the house, and for that reason one may be justified in wondering which group is moTe likely to contribute to the weakening of the ties. Frankly I feel that if those gentlemen were to remain silent on this matter they would help their own cause a good deal more. There is nothing more likely -to create doubt in a -person's mind: than to be constantly talking about the problems which constitute the subject of such doubts.
During the short time in which I have been in this house it has struck me whenever a measure such as the one now before the committee happens to meet with the approval of the Quebec members, some hon. members opposite come to the conclusion that there must be some sinister design behind it and that it should be systematically opposed. I hope that- my hon. friends opposite will recognize that there was no sinister antiBritish design in the minds of my Quebec ancestors when they refused to listen to Lafayette, Franklin, and others at the time of the American revolution; that there was no 63260-75
sinister design in their minds when they defended this country against the Americans during the war of 1812-14. Which group was trying to weaken the ties, and where were the sinister designs, when in 1849 a move was made for annexation of this country to the United States? I shall not take up time by giving the quotation I had intended to give at this point.
If I refer to those historical facts it is not with the view of recalling incidents which may be pleasant or unpleasant to one group or another. It is only tovreassure some of our friends on the other side about the position of the so-called ultra-nationalists so kindly referred to in an article of the Ottawa Journal of April 16, which I quote:
Young Men in a Hurry
Why are our young ultra-nationalists, so influential with the present government, in such an infernal hurry with their ultra-nationalist schemes? In a single session of parliament we have measures to change ''Dominion day" to "Canada day," to make Canadian citizenship more narrowly Canadian, and to create a "distinctive Canadian flag."
I shall dispense with reading another paragraph which I intended to read. The editorial establishes clearly that in some quarters there is a great deal of suspicion as to the loyalty of a group of Canadians in this country. May I quote from a letter published in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday over the signature of J. H. Bender, of Montreal:
Once more the Conservative party has resolved to try to regain the support it once commanded in this small conservative-thinking old province of Quebec.
The writer says in substance there is a suspicion about the loyalty of the French Canadians in some parts of Canada. I intended to quote a few paragraphs but that is the substance of it, and I do not want to take up too much time so I shall dispense with reading it. But I wish to bring this well-timed letter to the attention of the committee.
Let us be realistic for a moment, and ask ourselves what Quebec could possibly do to weaken its ties to the commonwealth. I see but two alternatives: annexation to the United States, and separatism. Hon. members who have studied the history of this country must have learned that the greatest opposition to annexation has come from Quebec. As to the suggestion sometimes lightly advanced of an independent Quebec state, it is simply preposterous. Some people, and Canadians of French culture are no exception to the rule, have a peculiar sense of humour. There are a few in Quebec who, in an academic frame of mind, choose oncq in awhile to talk separatism. In my opinion they do so pri-

Canadian Citizenship

marily to tease credulous people like some of our friends opposite. Nobody in Quebec takes them seriously, let alone the recognized leaders or leaders of the so-called "nationalist" movement in that province, who declared publicly and in no uncertain terms that they were definitely opposed to separatism. I am sure that the supposedly "ultra-nationalist" members of this house would express the same opinion if they were asked to give their views on this much abused question.
I believe a false impression is sometimes created outside of Quebec over the fact that the people of that province have to complain at times about certain alleged grievances. This government has been accused by extremists of catering to Quebec, and in a recent Gallup poll some two per cent of the people interviewed stated that they adhered to the Progressive Conservative party because the Liberals were favouring Quebec too much. The conclusive answer to this ridiculous contention is to be found in the memorable speech of the Prime Minister in the course of the short session during the autumn of 1944.
In my opinion, people of French descent, who have made an immense contribution to the upbuilding of this country, have been forced to accept a great many concessions and unpleasant situations in order that this common venture of confederation may be made a real success. Despite the fact that dark clouds may accumulate on the horizon at times, I honestly believe that this confederation has been an outstanding success, and had it not taken place, this country could not have developed and progressed to a point where it commands the admiration of the whole world. I am very frank in stating that in this common venture, it is the minority which has been forced to take most of the bumps. I do not begrudge the situation too much, as I realize that our lot is not uncommon with that of other minorities. I do not suggest for one moment that it would be better if we had to deal with a majority of another race and culture. It is possibly far better. But because the Anglo-Saxon people are reputed to be fair, broad and tolerant, as I believe the vast majority of them are, the minority group may reasonably expect from them a more liberal treatment than that generally accorded to other minorities in other parts of the world.
In my opinion if the amendment proposed should be accepted it would go a long way towards promoting a better understanding between the different groups of this country.
I take the view th^t there cannot be any serious reason for refusing to accept the amend-
ment, I know that objection has been raised by the Secretary of State, to the effect -that it would necessitate the amendment of a great many federal and provincial laws. Well, I have a suggested amendment which would cover that if it were accepted. I have no experience of drafting legislation, but I suggest that section 26 should be amended by adding to it a subsection 2 as follows, or substantially as follows:
' (2) Whenever, by virtue of any law now in force in Canada, or any regulation made thereunder, the rights and privileges of any person shall depend upon his status as a British subject, or whenever said law or regulation shall impose duties and obligations upon a British subject, then any Canadian citizen shall enjoy all such rights and privileges, and shall be bound by said duties and obligations in the same manner as if he were a British subject.
I humbly suggest that that amendment would cover the objection raised by the Secretary of State.


Thomas Reid: Is the hon. member moving that as an amendment?


Benoît Michaud: No, I cannot move
another amendment.


Thomas Reid: Good.


Benoît Michaud: I appeal to my compatriots. They have themselves accepted many sacrifices for the common cause, and they will again-not with any great degree of enthusiasm-accept another measure which is before the house for the benefit of Great Britain. I honestly believe that they are being asked more often than their turn to forget their point of view in order to concur in the views of the majority.
As members of parliament we are in a position to wield considerable influence with our constituents, and we ought to assume that responsibility courageously. The vast majority of our electors have not the time to study the very complex problems which confront us. They depend on us to a great extent to give them the cue. The vast majority of our electors are intelligent people-otherwise we would not be here-and because they are intelligent they are likely to listen to us, provided we play the game with them and endeavour to enlighten them.
As far as the Quebec members are concerned, hon. members know that there is considerable opposition in their province concerning a certain bill presently before the house. What would they do about it? The Minister of Justice took the lead, gave the cue and most of the other members in their turn followed suit, with the result that the opposition has practically waned out. On this point I too did my share almost a month
Canadian Citizenship
ago, although with no great degree of enthusiasm, but I felt it was my duty to take my stand and support the measure.
If hon. gentlemen who oppose this amendment would be kind enough to make a step in our direction and take it upon themselves to defend the amendment, I feel sure that they would easily rally the opinion of the majority of Canadians if it were properly explained.
Let me say that it is futile to expect to reach a much larger degree of national unity in this country if the minority is always asked to yield to the views of the majority. I shall conclude with a sentence from Lord Acton, as follows:
The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.
Amendment (Mr. Alistair Stewart) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 27-Rights and obligations.
Mr. BURTON:: I should like to say a
word or two in connection with this section. I need not apologize for taking up any of the time of the committee, because so far I have not taken part in the debate on this bill on any of the stages it has gone through. There are, however, a number of observations which I feel it my duty to make to the committee. But before doing so I wish to join with those who at other stages of the discussion have complimented the Secretary of State on having brought the bill before the house. I would remind the minister as well as other hon. members that, speaking in this house several years ago, I called attention to the desirability of something of this kind, and also pointed out the unfortunate position in which many of our people found themselves when the census official came around, because they were at a loss to understand why they could not call themselves Canadian citizens.
This section provides that a Canadian citizen shall, subject to the provisions of the act, be entitled to all the rights, powers and privileges and be subject to all the obligations, duties and liabilities to which a natural-bom Canadian citizen is entitled. That is something on which the Secretary of State should be congratulated. In another section of the bill provision is made for a certain amount of education along these lines. But this, I would point out, is something that has been long overdue. When we are talking about rights and privileges I rather feel that we all, in years gone by, have been too negligent in impressing upon those who take 63260-75J
upon themselves the citizenship of this country that the rights and privileges went along with corresponding duties and obligations.
Too often in the past have interests in this country, too often have different people, for their own purposes, made use of those who were brought in from other lands. They treated them well, no doubt, so long as it suited their purposes to do so, and then cast them aside and made light of their entry into Canada.
I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that many people came to the country from foreign lands with an honest and sincere desire to establish homes here for themselves, their children and their children's children for generations to come. While it is quite true-I am sorry I have to admit the fact-that occasionally some, a small number compared to the total number of those who came in, have not shown themselves worthy of the benefits, rights and privileges conferred upon them in the citizenship granted to them at that time, nevertheless the vast majority of those who came from other lands and assumed their duties and responsibilities, together with the rights and privileges that were conferred upon them, were sincere, and have endeavoured to live up to their responsibilities throughout the years. Too often have we in one way or another led them to believe that so far as the rest of us were concerned we were only too eager, when occasion arose, to treat their citizenship documents as a mere scrap of paper to be torn up at somebody's pleasure. On two occasions within our memory we have had people in this country who fulfilled every duty and obligation imposed upon them by their citizenship, and then we have found those people treated in a way unbecoming to citizens of Canada.
I regret to have to draw attention to this, but right in the constituency I have the honour to represent there were dozens and dozens of people, at whom I defy anyone to point the finger of suspicion or scorn, who had to go to the mounted police and have their fingerprints recorded. They had to report regularly-people who had sons in the active services-people with sons overseas in defence of their country of adoption. And yet someone has been responsible for having these people report regularly to the mounted police over a period of time, incurring the stigma attached to having their fingerprints taken. Do you call that doing something, with respect to people coming from foreign lands in order to take out citizenship papers here, to make them fully conscious of the privileges conferred upon them? Does treatment of this kind encourage them?
Canadian Citizenship

I suggest to the Secretary of State that when this bill becomes the law of the land and we confer on these people the rights and privileges, the duties and responsibilities of citizens, we and those succeeding us as a government must also consider that there is a duty, a responsibility upon us to see that those rights and privileges are not violated. I say that with all the power at my command.
I have throughout these years constantly endeavoured to impress upon the people I meet the fact that we all have our duties and responsibilities, and I have placed greater emphasis on the duties and responsibilities than on the rights and privileges. I appeal for assistance to get this message across, assistance to have it recognized that as a government we also have duties and responsibilities.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I ask the Secretary of State why, in line 9, a change has been made from the previous legislation, the word "political" having been left out? Previously the section read: "A Canadian citizen other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be entitled to all political rights, powers and privileges."


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason is that it was misleading. Many people who were naturalized thought that because the word was there it gave them the right to vote at once in any province, municipality, and so on, and the department was flooded with letters, on occasions of provincial elections, from people wanting to know why they had not the right to vote. They had become naturalized citizens, and they could vote provincially when they had acquired the right by having complied with the requirements of the provincial act. There was objection also that the word "political" tended to be used, not by anyone in this house but by some people, as a sort of stick over the heads of prospective citizens of Canada. Individuals hear that someone is going to apply for naturalization and they go to him and say: "If you do not, you are going to be deported," and so on. We have given consideration to the matter and believe it would be more desirable and less misleading to leave the term out.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is not the proper word "all"? Delete the words "political rights" and so on and say "all".


Paul Joseph James Martin: All rights.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think that would be wider.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But political rights do not include all rights. All this section says is that

once a person becomes naturalized in this country he has all the rights of a natural born citizen. That is strong and in a proper sense less misleading.
With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Humboldt, I thank him in the name of the government for what he said about the measure. It is desirable that a measure of this kind should have wide support in the country and in the house. This bill has received the kind of support from all parties which will ensure its being a useful instrument in our national life. I fully concur in what he said about naturalized Canadians and I expressed that concurrence in the statements I made on first and second readings and in my reply on second reading. I have pointed out that the people who come to this country from other lands, regardless of their ethnical origin, must be received by us as equals once they are taken into the Canadian family. They are part of this community, helping to build it up, and they must be treated as such. At the same time we must call to their attention the fact that there are obligations which all of us, naturalized and natural bom, must assume. There are also privileges and rights which are sacred and powerful, and which we want these people to enjoy. Therefore I fully concur in what the hon. gentleman has said, and I join with him again in paying a tribute to the people of his constituency and the constituencies of all hon. members. Certainly in my own constituency I have many excellent people who have come from other lands, Europe and elsewhere; who have merged themselvtes into Canadian life, and whose sons and daughters are a great credit to the country. I always think of a certain young girl as a good example. Before I became Secretary of State, and when I first became a member of parliament, I took from my own community as my secretary a young Polish girl who now has an important position with UNRRA. She was not born in this country, but she went to the schools in Windsor. Her father and mother had been bom in Poland. She won prizes at the high school. She lived in this vicinity for eight years and many here knew her. She was an outstanding person. She is simply one of many such people throughout this country who are a great credit to Canada, and everything that we can do to see that the status they have acquired is recognized by all groups will be done by this government in the administration of this act.


John George Diefenbaker: This section makes a profound declaration. It declares that-
A Canadian citizen other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be entitled to all rights, powers and
MAY 3,1&46
Canadian Citizenship
privileges and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a natural-born Canadian citizen is entitled . . .
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Humboldt. He spoke with feeling, great wisdom and with a full realization of a situation which prevailed, as he said, twice in the lifetime of many people, particularly in western Canada. I think of my own constituency and of one particular part of it where 175 people, whose fathers came from Germany, served overseas in the late war in the armed forces of this country. That is why I pressed so strongly the other day, but without success, to have done away with once and for all this regulation under which at each succeeding census those who are Canadians are required to register on the basis of race. That is why I introduced the amendment, which was defeated, to do ^ away once and for all with the one thing which in my judgment and in the judgment of many others does not contribute to the unity of Canada.
The Secretary of State has just made the statement that so far as this section is concerned, regardless of ethnical origin, once a person becomes a Canadian citizen he has all the rights, powers and privileges of a natural-born Canadian citizen. Is that strictly true? Last night just before adjournment I brought up the situation respecting the Japanese, which comes directly within the ambit of this section. I shall read the section again:
A Canadian citizen other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be entitled to all rights, powers and privileges . . .
Not subject to the provisions of orders in council that were passed last fall. After this bill becomes law, and I reiterate what I said last evening more strongly now after listening to the explanation of the Secretary of State-so far as section 27 is concerned, any Canadian citizen other than natural-born, regardless, to use the Secretary of State's own words, of ethnical origin, is entitled to all rights, powers and privileges of a natural-born Canadian citizen. What are these rights? They are clear. They certainly do not permit of deportation except under paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 21. I point out to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that this section is much stronger in support of the contention I raised last night than was the section to which I referred earlier. Section 21 provides that a person can only lose his citizenship under paragraph (a) if he is disloyal. In other words he has:

during any war in which Canada is or has been engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy; (b) has obtained a certificate of naturalization or of Canadian citizenship by false representation or fraud, or concealment . . .
He has committed a crime or has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty. There is one other provision that has no application at all. May I make myself clear? I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that Canadian citizenship does mean something. I ask him how by any stretch of the imagination he can argue that these orders in council passed in October last can be effectual as against section 27 when it is passed? I repeat: subject to the provisions of this bill any Canadian citizen other than natural-born is entitled to all rights. Does the Secretary of State suggest now that any law officer of the crown will give the opinion that an order in council passed before this bill is passed can have any effect as against section 27; or is this a means of affording a fortuitous circumstance whereby the government will not be forced to continue with its policy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This section is now the
law and has been the law for thirty-three years.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right;
it has been the law, but not as far as a citizenship act is concerned. You see, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend takes two or three different positions. One day he says there is nothing in this, that it has been the law for thirty years. In the next breath he says we are creating a new citizenship in this country, with new rights and new responsibilities. He cannot have it both ways. I am not going to carry on that argument; my hon. friends may continue it, but I am pointing out plain words which , do not require any lawyer or any judge for their interpretation. A Canadian citizen shall, subject to the provisions of this bill, be entitled to all rights, powers [DOT] and privileges. To interpret those words does not require any of the special knowledge that the hon. member for Cape Breton South suggested was possessed by the legal fraternity; and let me say that I have often thought what a wonderful lawyer he would have made, because even without that training he is able to argue as few lawyers can. But it does not require any legal interpretation; it does not require any splitting of hairs. There are the words; and I ask now not only that the Secretary of State place before the committee the general legal opinion that was given by the Department of Justice, but also in what way plain words are to be interpreted differently from their plain import and meaning.
Canadian Citizenship


William Henry Golding: Shall section 27 carry? Carried.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Chairman, I want an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What answer does my
hon. friend want? I told him I would put the question to the Department of Justice and when that legal opinion is prepared it will be given to the committee, but I am not the Minister of Justice.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I agree with the
hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Vancouver East, for a change, because to my way of thinking one does not need to be a lawyer to understand what this means. If you give a man all the rights of citizenship you cannot move him from one province to another or do anything at all with him; and why should you? I will go this far; why should you, even if he is a Jap or anybody else? If he is a Canadian citizen he is entitled to every right as a Canadian citizen as far as I am concerned. The hon. member for Vancouver East did not expect me to say that. I do not think there are any ifs, ands or buts about the matter.
I am no lawyer; if I were I would rather hope to be a defeated candidate and be made a judge.


Angus MacInnis: That would be another
poor judge.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I just agreed with you, and I expected something a little kinder than that. I think the minister should give us something definite on this matter, or he should not bring in such a section. Why are we going to all the expense of taking the matter to the privy council? I never saw a lawyer work for nothing yet.


Mr. FULTON:: What are we doing in this house?


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are just wasting our time talking about that, without knowing if this is to be the law. Will the minister definitely say that the Department of Justice, or whoever passes upon these things, has stated that these orders in council will stand?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only repeat what I have said already, that I am not the Minister of Justice. Last night the hon. member for Lake Centre asked if I would request the law officers of the crown to give an opinion, and I have done so. They will give their opinion to the Minister of Justice at the first opportunity, I presume, but I am not the minister of that department, and it would be Wholly presumptuous on my part to give an 
opinion. We have to rely upon the law officers of the crown, and their opinion will come in due course.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then will the minister hold over this section for the time being? I do not think he had any right to bring it in before obtaining an opinion from the Department of Justice. Will he hold this over until we know where we stand legally? Apparently the Minister of Justice has no knowledge whether or not it is legal, and I think the minister should have found that out before proceeding with the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot agree to hold over this section, because it has nothing to do with the matter referred to by the hon. gentleman. This section stands by itself, and this has been the law of the land for over thirty years. It is not introducing anything new, and has nothing to do with these deportation orders.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member
for Lake Centre says it has.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the hon. gentleman will not always rely upon what the hon. member for Lake Centre says.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would rely on the legal advice, of the hon. member for Lake Centre as against any legal advice you have in your department, when you bring in this sort of thing.


Thomas Miller Bell: Can we not get away for a few minutes from the matter which seems to be bothering a few of the hon. members from British Columbia? It seems to me we have before us a statute we are being asked to pass. I am entirely out of sympathy with the point of view that has been expressed. I believe anyone, of whatever colour, race or creed, who is a citizen of this country should be accorded all the rights of citizenship that every other citizen enjoys, and that there should be no discrimination whatsoever. We have had a long discussion about the Japanese in British Columbia. We have before us a bill by which we are trying to establish the rights of Canadian citizens, whether they are of this colour or that, of this religion or that, of this tongue or that. Why not consider it quite apart from the question of whether it will affect a particular group in a particular section of this country, and then, if necessary, let the courts decide that issue, as we do in connection with other legislation? I am no lawyer, but personally I hope this will give equal rights to all people in our country when we accept them as citizens in our midst. I say that because we are trying to practise what we preach. The other day I was delighted to
Canadian Citizenship
learn something I did not know before, that in Saskatchewan, where we have a C.C.F. government, that policy has prevailed and we have two outstanding young Canadians of Japanese origin, one a doctor and the other a lawyer, serving that province in their professional capacities.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: I am always glad to answer a question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then can the hon.
member tell me why the premier of Saskatchewan and his C.C.F. government are going against the very principle which the hon. member for Vancouver East and I have preached, that if you are a Canadian citizen you should have every right of the country. Why does the premier of Saskatchewan say he will take only a certain number of Japanese in his province? Does he not believe in Canadian rights?


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not the case.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But that is what he said.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not going to try to answer for the premier of Saskatchewan.
I know him pretty well, and I know his view, which is that Saskatchewan is prepared to take Japanese citizens-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Up to 1,200.


Thomas Miller Bell: No, not up to a limited number; that it is prepared to take citizens, not Japanese citizens, which is a different matter, but Canadians of Japanese origin.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is not what he said.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is what he said.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Pardon me, but it is not.


William Henry Golding: This discussion is not relevant to this section. I hope hon. members will confine their remarks to the section with which we are dealing.


Thomas Reid: Following what has been said by the leader of the C.C.F., may I say that my objection to the section is that it does not give equal status. The minister has admitted that it does not. That was my objection last night, and I still object. We talk too glibly about equal status. Yet the minister admits it does not give that. What status does it give the naturalized citizen? It does not give equal status with the naturalborn, and I am objecting on this ground. If we are to give them equal status, then let us say so. But do not be fooled by it; do not say one thing and think another. Make no mistake about it; it does not give equal status to the man who is naturalized.


William Henry Golding: Shall the section carry?


Thomas Reid: No.


Howard Charles Green: The situation is just not as simple as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar seems to think. Last December, through the Prime Minister, the government announced its policy with respect to Japanese in Canada.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member is out of order when he discusses that matter on this section.


Howard Charles Green: I think you will find in a minute or two, Mr. Chairman, that I am very much in order. Other hon. members have been allowed to discuss it.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: And he is not reading his speech, either.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, I was ruled out of order last night when I tried to speak to another section. If the debate is open on this section, then I have a long deferred speech I should like to make.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We will answer it.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Vancouver East was ruled out of order because it was decided that sections 16 and 17 should stand. I think he should have had an opportunity to speak, but the committee decided to let those sections stand. There will still be an opportunity for the hon. member.


Angus MacInnis: It is open now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Howard Charles Green: I wish to deal with section 27 of the bill. As I said a minute ago, the government announced a policy on December 15 of last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On what subject?


Howard Charles Green: The Japanese problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, this section deals simply with the proposition that naturalized Canadian citizens will have the same rights as natural-born Canadians, subject to the provisions of the bill. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, surely that is the only issue involved.
Canadian Citizenship

Then, on the point the hon. member has in mind, there will be opportunity in the discussion of suggested amendments to section 17. Surely, however, this discussion should be in the proper place.


Howard Charles Green: On that point, the hon. member for Lake Centre contended that section 27, if passed, would override the orders in council passed last December, and he was quite in order in making that submission. There has been no suggestion that he was out of order, and several other hon. members have spoken on the same subject. It is on that point I wish to speak. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee, that I have a perfect right to do so.
This section purports to confer certain rights, and I propose to deal with the question of-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not deal with rights, at all.


Howard Charles Green: -whether or not it overrides the orders in council.


William Henry Golding: I believe the hon. member is out of order in discussing government policy in connection with the Japanese when this section is before the committee. I believe he will agree with that.


Howard Charles Green: I certainly do not.


Mr. HACKETT:: Is it not- within the right of a member to discuss the effect of this section? That is all the hon. member is asking to do. His argument is that if this section be passed one of its effects will be to annul what we call an order in council, or legislation now existing. With great respect I submit that is one of the elementary purposes of discussion, namely to find out the effect of legislation to be enacted.


Thomas Miller Bell: Other hon. members having been allowed to discuss this problem, and having in mind the manner in which the matter has been raised, I think in all probability the hon. member might be in order in discussing it now. But may I respectfully submit to him and to other hon. members that there is bound to be a discussion when the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre is before us. It seems to me we would save a great deal of time if we tried to discuss this matter at one time.
No doubt the hon. member for Vancouver East and Vancouver South will make fairly lengthy speeches, and I can see something coming over the face of the hon. member for New Westminster which might indicate that he will have something to say.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member is right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And Fraser Valley.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: And Winnipeg North.


Thomas Miller Bell: , Can we have those speeches on the section where there would be no doubt as to their being in order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On section 17.


William Henry Golding: I have no desire to curtail debate, but I believe it is the duty of the Chair to have members deal with the sections under discussion. There was a lengthy debate on the principle of the bill before we went into committee. The question now introduced has been discussed repeatedly, not only in connection with this bill, but at other times. However, I am in the hands of the committee, and it must decide whether the hon. member for Vancouver South shall discuss the matter now, or wait until the committee discusses the amendment offered by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Either procedure would be satisfactory to me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Last night we held over two sections so that this very matter could be discussed. Section 17 was set'aside particularly for that purpose. The same procedure was taken in connection with section 16, although I thought it had no relevance. "When we come to that I shall have something to say' by way of some additions. In view of these facts I suggest that is the way we ought to leave it.


Howard Charles Green: May we have section 27 stand?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, we cannot let every section stand. We left two standing last night, so that this matter could be discussed, and so that I could give consideration to a matter mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South. There will be ample opportunity for discussion, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said. I would suggest with great respect that we pass this section, and later come to the others before the close of the day.


Howard Charles Green: I have a suggestion to make to the minister respecting an amendment which I think would meet the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In connection with section 27?


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member is about to move an amendment to the section, he is in order.
Canadian Citizenship


Howard Charles Green: No. I am not. But I am suggesting to the minister that there is a possibility here of conflict between two governmental policies, one of which was announced last December and implemented by order in council, and the second of which is found in the citizenship bill. Would it not meet the difficulty if an amendment were inserted

*


Paul Joseph James Martin: In this section, or this
measure?


Howard Charles Green: I do not care where it is
put. It would state that nothing in this act shall override the provisions of orders in council 7355, 7356 and 7307, passed on December 15, 1945, and1 would make it deadi clear that the policy adopted last December by the government is to be carried through.
If something of that sort is not done, we may be met with a situation wherein, once the citizenship bill is passed without any amendment of this kind, it would be said, "Oh, well, it is too bad. We had our Japanese policy; but now that this bill has gone through it takes away our power to carry out that policy. It is just too bad. The Japanese may go back to British Columbia. Of course we feel very sorry for you, but we cannot do anything about it." I suggest that the government give consideration to inserting an amendment along the line I have suggested.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have given consideration to it, but my mind is not made up. We have now before the officials a proposed amendment which would properly come under section 46. I am not saying now that we shall accept it, but that is the section under which it should be considered. I may have an opportunity to consider it during the dinner recess.


Mr. STIRLING:: Surely we have had
sufficient reason shown for the minister to hold over section 27. Reference has been made to the fact that there has been considerable debate on this bill. I was not the only one on second reading to ask the government to make its statement to bring us up to date on the question of its Japanese policy. The subject was reintroduced last evening on sections 16 and 17, and they were allowed to stand. But we are now discussing section 27, and the hon. member for Lake Centre calls attention to the fact that in his view there is a conflict between section 27 and the government's policy as announced].


Paul Joseph James Martin: Cannot we deal with that when we consider the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver South? I think he has suggested the proper course to deal effectively
with the matter. I am not saying that we shall accept it, but if we do, the place to do it is under section 46.


Grote Stirling: Then the only course for us is to hold over section 27 until the minister makes up his mind. The hon. member for Lake Centre raises the question of conflict between this section and the government's policy. The Secretary of State says that he is not prepared to answer him now but that the matter has been submitted to the Minister of Justice and in due course an expression of opinion by the Department of Justice will be forthcoming. Then I say most certainly this section should stand until this committee has received that opinion. It is just as much worthy of standing as sections 16 and 17. They are all linked together, and now the minister links this section with section 46.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Vancouver South has proposed an amendment which it would be proper to consider on section 46; that is the place to deal with it. I am sure he will agree with me that if the amendment is something along the lines we expect, it will meet the point. I do not want to hold over section after section. All that this section does is simply to say that the naturalized person has the same rights as the natural-born.


Thomas Reid: He has not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Subject to the provisions of this bill. We can deal with the matter under the proper section, which is section 46. The mere fact that one hon. member says that this is the section to deal with it does not make it so. It is obvious that section 46 is the place. The hon. member will be fully safeguarded. I urge the committee to allow this section to pass now in the in the interest of progress.


Grote Stirling: If the minister would say that when we come to section 46 he is going to amend it in such and such a way we should have no reason for asking that this section stand, but all he says is that the matter is still under consideration by his officials. We have no intimation as to the intention of the government with respect to section 46 and most certainly therefore the course for us is to have section 27 stand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have been as frank as I could. I said that I have been considering this matter but hon. gentlemen will appreciate that this is a complicated measure. We are considering an amendment somewhat along the lines which the hon. member for Van-
Canadian Citizenship

couver South has mentioned, but I have not yet had a chance to see that amendment, and I do not want to say to the committee that it will be accepted. I think I have gone as far as I could, It certainly will not affect section 27.


Mr STIRLING:: It certainly does in our view.
Section 27 agreed to.
On section 28-British subjects under the laws of other countries of the British commonwealth.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I ask for elucidation of one point? The hon. member for Eglinton has one idea with respect to a British subject and I have another. A British subject is one who was born in the British dominions or British possessions. Section 2(g) provides that "country of the British commonwealth" means:
For the purposes of this act a country listed in the first schedule to this act.
In the first schedule the United Kingdom appears. Does that include crown colonies and dependencies and India?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. There is no doubt about that. The hon. member for Swift Current asked a question on that last night.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the minister say whether Ireland which is mentioned in the first schedule includes Eire as well as Northern Ireland?


Thomas Reid: That is a $64 question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Northern Ireland comes under the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: Would a person born in India who has come to Canada and been here the necessary time to acquire Canadian domicile be considered a Canadian citizen under the terms of the bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Even though India is not mentioned in the schedule?


Paul Joseph James Martin: India is not a country with nationality lawrs of her owm. These matters are determined for India by United Kingdom statutes.


Mr. BENTLEY:: Yesterday afternoon and evening the hon. member for Eglinton corrected the statement I made about some of these people. The Secretary of State has now corrected him and shown that my statement was correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Thomas John Bentley: That is just for the record.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Henry Golding: I think the committee should return to section 21. I must apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North for neglecting to bring his amendment before the committee. Just before eleven o'clock last night he had proposed to amend section 21 by deleting subsection 1(d) and substituting the following therefor:
has been convicted of treason or sedition by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 21(1)(d) reads:
(d) has, since becoming a Canadian citizen or being naturalized in Canada, been for a period of not less than six years ordinarily resident out of Canada and has not maintained substantial connection with Canada.
The amendment proposed is:
has been convicted of treason or sedition by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Is the committee in favour- of the amendment?


Howard Charles Green: I wish to ask the minister a question with regard to this section.


William Henry Golding: This is section 21, subsection 1 (d). This is the clause we renumbered. The clause reads as follows:
has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty.
The amendment reads:
has been convicted of treason or sedition by a court of competent jurisdiction.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to support the - government in connection with this amendment.
Mr, MARTIN: May I thank the hon. gentleman? It is a relief.


Howard Charles Green: It is a terrible thing to have to agree with the minister, but I think he is quite right in this case. This provision has stood in our naturalization law for at least thirty years, and I believe it is necessary, to deal with exactly the type of cases to which the minister referred last night. I would point out to members of the committee that a new provision has been added in this section under which the minister and the governor in council cannot act to deprive a person of his citizenship without first giving him notice and without the appointment of a commission to inquire into all the facts. In other words, the person whose citizenship is under attack is given a very wide power of making his case, and I do not think there is the slightest chance of his losing his citizenship unfairly. I suggest that the government be supported in maintaining the clause as it appears in the bill.
Canadian Citizenship


Thomas John Bentley: I do not follow the
reasoning of the hon. member for Vancouver South. He says that a person whose citizenship was under attack would have every opportunity, by appearing before a competent commission, to prove his innocence. By what line of reasoning would he not agree that it would be better to have the person formally charged and enabled to prove his innocence before a'competent court of law?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has put his finger on the reason why I think the subsection should stay as it is. Most of the revocations have to do with people who have left the country. I would say that 90 per cent-my deputy puts it at more that-are cases of people who have left Canada. Obviously we cannot deal with them in our courts. As the hon. member for Vancouver South has mentioned, I was not content merely to be able to revoke it on the declaration and the pen of the minister. No revocation wTill take place unless a commission which has been appointed-it is a continuing commission headed by a judge-has an opportunity of going into all the facts alleged by the department, and due notice has been given to the party concerned. For instance, my officials are now in the process of dealing with many hundreds of cases of people-the kind of group I mentioned last night-who have left Canada. In many cases we do not know where they are, so that obviously the amendment which the hon. gentleman has in mind would not meet the objective about which we are really concerned. We deal largely with people outside Canada, and the words used are classic words; they are used throughout the Naturalization Act; they will be found in naturalization acts throughout the commonwealth, and, except for the reference to His Majesty, the language is substantially the same as will be found in the United States act. But the point I wish to make is, first of all, that if we accepted the amendment we could not deal with the cases we have to deal with, and, second, such case is not being dealt with through any bureaucratic method, but is dealt with following proper notice to the party concerned, who is given a full chance, through representation by counsel and the like, to show whether or not the revocation should take place.


Thomas John Bentley: The explanation is reasonable and clear. I am not going to argue about it, because I can quite see that you cannot bring an absentee before a court of law. The minister, however, just stated that this condition applies to the large majority of cases, 90 or 95 per cent, but there might
be a small percentage which would be left here, and I do not see why this amendment could not be accepted and applied to the case of those who may not be absent. Is there not some way that the minister could give an assurance that those who are in the country and can be formally brought and charged before a court will be dealt with in that way?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The cases are so infinitesimally insignificant in number that there is not much point to be concerned about. If a man is in the country he has his rights in the courts. Nobody can deprive him of them.


John George Diefenbaker: I am very much
interested in the last few words of the Secretary of State. This is the first time I have ever heard it enunciated that a person had any rights in the courts under a section such as this, once a decision has been made on the part of this commission or committee. I should be interested to hear of one case where a decision made by a bureaucratic body-or an administrative body, if you would sooner have it in that way-could, under a section such as this-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not misunderstand me. What I mean is that this commission we have is headed by a judge, and one holding a high judicial office, usually in the supreme court. The last judge who headed the commission was the chief justice of Manitoba; and he has two people associated with him. I did not mean "the courts" in the sense of police courts or anything of that sort.


Thomas Miller Bell: I believe the suggestion made by the hon. member for Swift Current is a good one. It may be that the number of cases wherein it is proposed to revoke the citizenship of someone living in this country is very small; but, however small, the persons concerned have the right to be protected under our law, and I am hesitating very much indeed to allow in our acts of parliament the setting up of commissions, even when headed by a judge, who can assume powers which ought to be exercised only by the courts.
I am not going to discuss that further this afternoon, but on another occasion I intend to have something to say about the manner in which our judicial processes have been set aside and commissions-composed of very worthy and reliable judges-have been set up to act in a manner contrary to every fundamental of British and Canadian justice. I am not disposed to support in any bill the setting up of commissions of this description which have to decide anything as important
Canadian Citizenship

as whether a man should be deprived of his citizenship. It may be that it is impossible to bring action in a court against a man who is absent. I am not a lawyer and I do not follow the law cases, but I seem to have hazy recollections of cases of persons who have been ordered to appear before courts of law and who have not appeared because they could not appear, and have been tried and sentenced in their absence. Even if the number of cases is infinitesimal, as the minister says, I am not disposed to allow this kind of thing to continue. We have had in recent days what I consider an abuse of this kind of thing. I want to see a citizen, even if it is only one citizen, adequately protected under the law. The hon. member for Swift Current suggested a way out and I would ask the minister to give consideration to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say I am not impressed. I think we had better let the section stand. There is a strong case for the suggestion.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not meet the objection if we provided that the inquiry should be by the court? The minister already has power in the section to refer the matter to a court or commissioner, who must be a judge. Why not make the reference solely to the court? That would meet the objection.


John George Diefenbaker: In some particulars I agree with what the leader of the C.C.F. has stated. I think we have come to the point where the setting up of these commissions should be an earnest study on the part of parliament with a view to doing away with them. The Secretary of Statq speaks about the fact that a judge will be placed in charge-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has been.


John George Diefenbaker: -has been in charge of this commission. I know of one commission which has recently been sitting which has set aside all the principles and all the traditions of British law and justice, and it has made a horrible mistake in one case we know of. They were two of the most eminent judges in this country operating under the commission system, which in its very essence can be a denial of British justice.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Would that be the first time a court has made a mistake, the first time human beings have made a mistake?


John George Diefenbaker: No. The Minister of Labour speaks with such experience on the question of making mistakes that I can understand the present question.	_


Humphrey Mitchell: One thing about it, I am frank to admit it.


John George Diefenbaker: However, he is an affable fellow and we never have real disagreements. At any rate, this is a case that deserves the attention of parliament. A royal commission sat and tried people-one person, we will say; I will not deal with the others because they are before the courts. They tried him and found him guilty-two high court judges-and a magistrate said there was no evidence whatsoever against him sufficient to commit him. I refer to their report relating to the provisions for the setting up of the commission, at page 20, from which I quote:
Therefore, there would seem to be no answer on the evidence before us, to a charge of conspiring to communicate secret information to an agent of the U.S.S.R.
That is an example of what happens under commissions. I did not know we were back to section 21, but we are in the position here of approving the setting up of commissions. I am glad my hon. friend,, a member of the government, has learned of the importance of having counsel representing the accused-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am learning every day.


John George Diefenbaker: -because he pointed out that in this case counsel would be permitted to be present. But I suggest that while this section may have been here for a long time-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to agree with the amendment if I can get a chance.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, you are?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said so a long time ago.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend did not say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, he did.


John George Diefenbaker: He must have been conducting a conversation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman was engaged in other things when I said I was impressed by the argument to which I had listened, and I was impressed, because it has troubled me. I would therefore ask the Minister of Mines and Resources to move now that paragraph (e), which as amended is now (d), be amended by inserting after the word "has" the words "if out of Canada", and after "His Majesty" the words "or, if in Canada, has been convicted of treason or sedition by a court of competent jurisdiction".


Mr. GLEN:: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 29-Rights of aliens.
Canadian Citizenship
Mr. MacNICOL:: In subsection 2 (b) there are the words "qualify an alien to be the owner of a Canadian ship". Can the alien be the captain or master of a ship he owns trading between Canada and some foreign country, and if qualified as captain or master of a Canadian ship while he himself is an alien, can he carry on intercoastal trade in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be governed by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1934, which I think provides that the captain has to be-a British subject.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In paragraph (d), in line 3, there are the words "mediately or immediately." I interpret the word "mediately" to mean any time in the future, or some time later. Is that correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This had to be put in because, under the common law, an alien could not hold property.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Have I interpreted the word "mediately" correctly?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. That goes back to 1881 and was put in by Sir John A. Macdonald. I quote from the House of Commons debates of 1881, at page 1369:
But, notwithstanding, it is absolutely necessary that there should be concurrent legislation and that parliament should intervene and have power to deal with this alienage question as well. I believe in all the provinces, by provincial laws, aliens have the right to hold property. But the question of an alien is a matter altogether belonging to the crown or parliament. An alien cannot of course stay in the country except by special permission of the crown-he can only stay on sufferance. By the law of nations now settled, and the concurrence of many treaties between civilized nations, he has a right to trade between nations at peace. An alien can trade and hold property under statute; but he cannot for reasons of state, connected with the existence of the empire, become a permanent occupier or owner of the soil, and liable to all the duties and responsibilities attaching to such ownership. There is no clearer position than that the crown is not bound by an act unless the crown is specially mentioned in it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister give an explanation of the significance of the year 1883?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the date when the act came into force.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thought the .minister
mentioned 1881.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was when the act was passed. It was proclaimed in 1883.


Mr. SHAW:: Subsection 2 of section 29
states:
This section shall not operate so as-to (a) qualify an alien for any office or for any municipal, parliamentary or other franchise.
It is assumed that the reverse is not true, that it disqualifies him; but what I find confusing is the reference to municipal franchise. It seems to me that the provincial governments determine who shall or shall not vote in the municipality. The same argument applies with respect to the holding of any office in the municipality. It comes to my mind that I had occasion three years ago to talk with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to determine the eligibility of an alien to hold office in a municipal council. It was determined that he could. We checked the War Measures Act which stated specifically that an alien was not disqualified from holding municipal office. Why is specific reference made to municipal franchise, when that falls properly within the jurisdiction of the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will remember that under subsection 25 enumerated head, section 91 of the British North America Act, the power over aliens is given to the parliament of Canada. It is for that reason that we deal with this situation; we are the only body that can. Many hon. members must have had the experience of meeting with individuals who have been in the country for a long time and who perhaps are not aware of what they must do in order to become naturalized citizens and so on. There have been occasions w'here they have run for office and so on without being British subjects, and wilthout having become naturalized. The dominion government is the only body that can deal with the matter.


Thomas Reid: In view of the fact that property rights, under the British North America Act, come under the jurisdiction and authority of the various provinces, if a province passed a law denying an alien the right to hold property, would that affect this section? Which law would prevail?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only repeat what I said, under enumerated head subsection 25 of section 91, the federal parliament is given power over aliens, and the judicial committee has construed that particular section in question as being within our competence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 30-Trial of alien.
Frederick Davis Shaw: May I again refer to the
matter that I brought up a moment ago? It is still a bit confusing to me. Am I correct in concluding that a provincial government has no right to state whether an alien can or
_____________Canadian Citizenship

cannot vote m a municipal election or hold office? In other words, if a province asserts in its municipal act by mistake that an alien is qualified, does it take that action contrary to the provisions of the British North America Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. This section merely says that it shall not have the effect of qualifying any such person to hold municipal office.	[DOT]


Frederick Davis Shaw: It does not disqualify them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This section does not qualify anyone.


Thomas Miller Bell: It does not prevent a provincial government from saying in its municipal act that a man need not be a Canadian citizen or a British subject. We know that for years in western Canada, particularly in the newer sections when we had large numbers coming in, they were not there long enough to qualify as citizens. Yet we had to establish school boards or something of that kind, and the result was that under the property rights the qualification to vote and to hold office was there in spite of the fact that a man may not be a citizen. As I take this section, and as I think the minister intends it, it does not prevent the province from allowing that kind of thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This section is not to be construed as giving any qualifications. .


Thomas Miller Bell: Or disqualifications.


Thomas Reid: With reference to section 30, would the minister explain why in a bill of this kind a section is inserted which states: An alien shall be triable at law in the same manner as if he were a natural-born Canadian citizen.
I would have thought a section of this kind would appear in the criminal code or in some other law.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the common law an alien had the right to be tried by people who understood his own language; this section was inserted just to remove the doubt.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-Application, where made.
John Ritchie MacNicol: How will section 31 conform with the amendment that the minister has proposed to section 10, which has to do with British subjects coming into Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The amendment which is proposed to section 10 excludes British subjects from the obligation of going into court. This does not affect them.


Howard Charles Green: I think it is not quite as clear at that. Several of the sections deal with court procedure. The minister should consider whether or not, in view of his proposed amendment to section 10, he will have to make a change here. For example, take the manner in which an application is to be made. Is it to be made to the court or to the minister direct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Direct to the Secretary of State.


Howard Charles Green: Under section 31 every application would have to be made to the court. Mr. MARTIN: No.


Howard Charles Green: That is the way it reads. It says:
, Ari application for a certificate of citizenship shall be made to the court in the judicial district m which the applicant resides or as otherwise prescribed by regulation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This refers to an application to a court, and my amendment refers to a declaration which goes to the minister-two different things.


Howard Charles Green: Should not some words be put in after the word "application", an application to the court? .


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what it says; an application for citizenship shall be made to the court.


Howard Charles Green: I read it as though every
application must be made to the court.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The other one is not an
application; it is a declaration on the part of the British subject. That is the way the amendment reads.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
On section 34-Production of evidence.
Howard Charles Green: What about this section?
Surely an applicant who is a British subject must make an application to someone. He does not simply file a declaration; he makes an application. Section 34 reads as though he must personally appear in court.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, he does not file an
application; he simply makes a declaration to the minister. I call attention to my proposed amendment which appears on page 1145 of Hansard:
. . . the minister may grant a certificate of Canadian citizenship to any person who is a British subject and who makes to the minister a declaration that he desires such certificate
We carefully considered it and used the word "declaration" there; it is not an application; it is a declaration which he makes.

Canadian Citizenship


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think there is any need for it. We have gone into it carefully. We are quite satisfied. One is a declaration and the other is an application. We want to keep that distinction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The concluding words of
section 34 deal with personal appearance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is with regard to the applicant for a certificate. A British subject is not an applicant for a certificate; he merely makes a declaration which comes to us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask the minister what harm there could be in clarifying this position. There could be no objection, I suggest, to the sort of action I have mentioned. It is simply clarifying the procedure, to put it beyond all question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have gone over that, and we think it is quite clear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely a British subject, though he is only required to complete a declaration, eventually will be an applicant for a certificate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will go to him automatically, pursuant to the declaration.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I should like some information from the minister. There appears to be an anomaly in this clause, in that although a natural-born Canadian is a Canadian citizen and is entitled to a certificate as of right, he must make application therefor to a court under sections 34 and 35, and the onus is upon such applicant to satisfy the court by evidence that he is a fit and proper person to be granted such certificate and that he possesses the required qualifications. As I see it, the possible effect might be that although the natural-born Canadian citizen is entitled to all the rights, privileges and so on of a citizen, he may be refused a certificate of citizenship on the ground that the court did not believe he was entitled to be a Canadian citizen, a status which in my opinion cannot be taken away from him. It seems to me it should not be within the power of any person to refuse a certificate to a Canadian citizen who has not lost his status by establishing domicile in another country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I must say I do not get the point of my hon. friend's remarks. To which section is the hon. gentleman referring?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Section 34, and it also covers section 35. He might be refused a certificate of citizenship on the ground that the court did not believe he was entitled to be a Canadian citizen. In my opinion that is a status which cannot be taken away from him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not understand the hon. gentleman. This only applies to aliens.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.
On section 37-Instruction in the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I attach a great deal of importance to sections 37 and 38, as I am sure all other hon. members do, because much of the lack of a sense of citizenship in this country may be ascribed to the fact that there has not been adequate instruction of the type contemplated by section 37. I do not wish to prolong debate on this subject, because we have had some indication already from the minister as to the emphasis which he places upon this section. I am concerned, however, about the method by which the education of adult immigrants may be carried on. I cannot conceive that it is something which should be confined entirely to efforts on the part of the dominion, because it would be very easy for the dominion to run afoul of the rights of the provinces in the field of education.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We intend to elicit their help.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what I wanted to get at. I should like the minister, if he will, to make a statement as to the thoughts of the administration in regard to bringing about the type of education contemplated by section 37, in cooperation with the provinces, because, it seems to me that without the fullest cooperation between the dominion and the provinces in this respect we shall not succeed in fully carrying out the intention set forth in section 37.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman is quite correct, and I think I may as well make a statement on our general plans now. First of all, we intend to encourage all existing bodies who are now and have been for some time engaged in trying to impress upon new citizens the nature of the Canadian scene, something about its history, something about their rights, privileges and obligations, and
Canadian Citizenship

so on. The work of Canadian clubs in many communities has been so great that I should pay public tribute to them to-day. There has been splendid [DOT]work by the Daughters of the Empire in many communities, particularly in Ontario. In my own community they have done an exceptional job. Last night I mentioned the work of Mrs. Hamilton whose textbooks for new Canadians, prepared at her own expense, are now being used by the Daughters of the Empire throughout the province. We are going to encourage organizations of this kind to continue that work, and try to persuade other organizations in different communities to take an interest in it as well. In many communities teachers, and others than teachers, conduct night classes at their own expense. There is one in the city of Toronto; there are two in Ottawa, and there are a number in my own city. These people spend many evenings during the year in giving these people instruction in history and that sort of thing, and we shall encourage that. I have already had talks with some ministers of education, and I hope to have talks with all of them, to enlist their cooperation, to get their help and to obtain their point of view so that we can do something along these lines in a very worth-while way. We are giving consideration to the publication of some historical material which we shall ask educational bodies to use. I do not think we should do that work alone; we would rather escape any suggestion that it is done by a government. I believe it should be done by people outside the government. This covers simple facts which perhaps many of us who are natural-born citizens have forgotten.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about instruction in languages, too? I think that is highly important. What are the plans for working in cooperation with the provincial educational authorities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What does the hon. member mean about languages?


Donald Methuen Fleming: To assist the adult immigrants in languages.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In their own languages?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; in either English
or French.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There will be instruction
in history, in literature and so on. For instance, in some of these classes in my own city actual instruction is given in both French and English. That is also done here in Ottawa. I do not know about Toronto; that is very likely the case there as well, but it is certainly intended to do that sort of thing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister made it
quite clear that he intends to encourage the efforts of these public-spirited bodies and groups in the work they are carrying on. I was wondering if he had something more concrete in the way of plans for assisting provincial educational authorities to carry on the education of adult immigrants in history, languages and so on, in an official way, rather than simply leaving it to the efforts of public-spirited citizens and groups.


Thomas Reid: Similar to the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What kind of assistance,
beyond what I have indicated? Does the hon. gentleman mean financial assistance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wondered if the minister had any plans. Might I just elaborate on that; it may assist the minister in his reply. We have a dominion-provincial conference going on, in connection with which we hear nothing except about taxation agreements. Many things in the way of cooperation between the dominion and the provinces should be discussed at such a meeting. We do not know whether or not they have been discussed. The field of education is the exclusive prerogative of the provinces, and I think we are all in agreement that it should remain so. The matter of education is properly a matter for provincial jurisdiction; but here we are talking of education which will be available to adult immigrants to qualify them for something the dominion offers, namely citizenship. Has the government in mind any type of cooperation with provincial educational authorities? I am not speaking now of these worthy groups of public-spirited citizens. Their efforts are commendable, but I think they should be supplemented by something in the way of public efforts to assist adult immigrants to obtain the necessary education. Speaking from experience, I have known a number of most worthy adult immigrants from European countries to whom little or no opportunity has been given to learn the languages or the history of this country or how our institutions work, and I am thinking principally of our political institutions. There has been a sad lack of consideration given to the need for education among adult immigrants coming to this country. I think there is a great field there that has not been adequately tapped yet, and I hope that when this bill becomes law it will not simply be left to the efforts of worthy public-spirited citizens, and that there will be a genuine and vigorous effort
Canadian Citizenship
on the part of the educational authorities, with the assistance of the department administered by the Secretary of State, to give these people the full opportunity they need to equip themselves for everything that will make them good citizens; because this country, when they do become citizens, will be the better for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree; and I thought I had said that we intend to do that. I pointed out that we have already discussed the matter with several of the provincial ministers of education. The act has not been proclaimed. The new citizenship branch has just come over to my department, and we are trying to establish the work along solid lines.
Education is a matter for the provinces, and we would not want to do anything which would interfere with their prerogatives as determined by the constitution. We intend in each province to work in cooperation, doing all we can to give information to potential Canadians along lines that will receive not only the understanding and approval but also the full and hearty cooperation of provincial governments. We have had some discussion with several of these, and I hope before too long the officers of the department and I will be able to continue the discussions with other provinces.


Angus MacInnis: After the explanation
given by the minister, may I add something to what has been said by the hon. member for Eglinton? I do not believe anyone who has given thought or study to the matter of immigration in the past could but be appalled at the exploitation of immigrants who have come to this country. No attempt whatsoever was made to teach them their duties or to inform them of their duties, obligations and rights. Advantage was taken of their lack of understanding of our customs and institutions.
I believe the intentions of the minister are good, because he is interested in education and the great need for it. But the vagueness of the proposals for meeting these needs would serve to show the inadequacy of anything already done. Something positive must be done so that provincial governments will make this part of their duties. These immigrants are children, in the sense that they must be instructed in the knowledge of the constitution of our country. They must be told about their rights and duties as citizens and their relationship to the rest of the community, so that they will have a clear understanding of such matters
I believe it would have the greatest psychological effect in making good citizens of these people if, immediately upon their coming to this country, they were told or if they were made aware that the state had an interest in them, and was interested in seeing that they had an opportunity to do what was best for themselves and for their adopted country. I hope the minister does not leave this matter with the Imperial Order, Daughters of the Empire, or any other organization. It is too important for that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree with what the hon. member has said. He and the committee at large may be assured that I have a definite interest in this problem. I have felt that there has been a great lack of interest in these proceedings. We want to help these new Canadians, and to inform them, when coming into this national community, that in addition to duties they will have certain privileges.
I have tried to indicate my position. I do not make this as a personal observation, but simply to indicate the spirit in which we are trying to approach this problem. I should point out that as Secretary of State I have written to every person who has been naturalized since I have become minister, extending to each one a welcome, telling something of Canada and pointing out that now they are here they can consider this their country, just as do those of us who were born here, and inviting them to help in every possible way.
Although we have not yet had full opportunity to discuss the matter with the provinces, we have had discussions with Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and have moved through their adult educational branches. I am on the advisory board of the adult educational association of Canada, having held that office before I became minister. It is our hope that we may use agencies such as that, as well as provincial departments of education, to carry out a systematic programme of work which will be both instructive and helpful, and in an effort not to leave new Canadians in the lurch. We have no desire to say, "Well, we have accepted you, but with reservations." We want to avoid that kind of impression with its results.
Let me assure the committee that my approach to this problem will not be the result of any vague plan. But before one can have a jslan he must have the cooperation of the provincial departments of education. We are proceeding with that preliminary, and when we have succeeded we hope to be in a position to enlist not only the cooperation of departments of education, with our citizenship branch, but the cooperation of agencies and organizations such as the workers' educa-
Canadian Citizenship

tional association, the adult education movement and many other worthwhile bodies in Canada who are doing so much good and who are conducted by people who have at heart only the welfare of this country.
I can assure my hon. friend that I shall carry on, on this front, an offensive which, I trust, will meet with the approval of all hon. members.


Thomas Reid: Following up what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East, let me say I agree that there is no more appropriate section before us than the present one. Speaking for the people of British Columbia, I can say they have felt for a long time that something more should be done than has been done in the past. So far as my opinion goes, there is no section in the bill concerning which the minister has been more vague. Certainly he has not taken the members of this committee into his confidence at all, but has spoken only in generalities.
He has painted a very nice picture. He will do certain things for these people, and then there will be an appropriate and beautiful ceremony. Everything will be fine. That is all very well, of course, and they are most pleasing generalities. But after this measure passes, the House of Commons will not have much chance to know what takes place. It will rest with the minister and his officials.
The minister has not taken members sufficiently into his confidence. He should tell us what he has in mind, because, knowing him as I do, I have no doubt he has given some thought to what type of ceremony, what kind of education and what kind of test will be given these people, so that they will know more about the country before they are given certificates.
People come to Canada from thirty-six different countries, the political philosophies of many of which are entirely different from those held by hon. members. Has the minister given any thought to what is done in the United States? Over there they outline what a man must know before he is given a certificate of naturalization.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have tried to explain that, and I have said we are going to carry out the same procedure; if not, better.


Thomas Reid: In the United States it is in their act.	.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Thomas Reid: We are only giving the minister power to do what he likes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; the hon. member made that statement earlier, and it is not correct.

Those regulations were not included in the act when it was passed. They were supplemented years later.
Section stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre)-(for Mr. Boucher) moved the second reading of bill No. 37 for the relief of Marie Evelyn Dormer.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are two other bills of the same sort if you desire to take them at the same time.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Maybank moves the second reading also of bill No. 48, for the relief of Margaret Ruth Weir Allan, and of bill No. 18, for the relief of Juliana Edmonda Isabella Eerdinanda Becquaert de Beaujeu.


Mr. MAYBANK:: I desire to say a few words with reference to these bills before they are given a second reading. So far as I am concerned I am in favour of a general 'divorce law and I am in favour also of these particular laws being passed at this time. But I am not favourable to the procedure which we have followed since, I think, time immemorial and, speaking on the second reading of these bills, I desire to place on record my views.
As every person knows we have substantially the same divorce law across Canada except in one province, and it is the same divorce law that is administered in the senate of this parliament when these matters are considered there. There is no general divorce law in the province of Quebec. It has developed since some time past that whenever adultery is committed in the province of Quebec and the outraged husband or the outraged wife wants to do anything about it, he or she comes to the parliament of Canada and asks the parliament of Canada to pass a special law, among all the other statutes with which it has to deal, giving her relief as it is called, in the event of a female spouse coming forward, from continued association with her adulterous husband. That occurs one hundred times, two hundred times, three hundred times a year-not the adultery, may I say in reply to a query from behind me, but the applica-
Private Bills-Divorce
tion for a law of divorce. It seems to me, sir, that it is not a proper part of the duties of the parliament of this nation to be continually considering, in the midst of its important business, these trivialities. I do not think we should continue to invite petitions of this sort and deal with laws of this sort. If the people of the province of Quebec want a divorce law to be applicable there and do not want to set up divorce courts their views should be respected. I am not suggesting for a moment that any person should even attempt to foist divorce jurisdiction on an unwilling province, whether it be Quebec or any other province. But so far as John Doe and Richard Roe and their spouses are concerned, when they went to Quebec they knew there was no divorce law in that province, and if infidelity occurs on the part of the Spouses of either of these men I do not think they should come to this parliament and ask us to pass a special statute to declare unmarried those who theretofore had been married. I believe that we shall never get away from this sort of legislation, improper for this parliament to be dealing with at all, until we make some sort of declaration that this sort of petition will not hereafter be entertained and that petitions of this sort cannot be received by this parliament with any chance of being acted upon.
I would not be in favour in the given case before us of saying no, we will not pass this law, because, after all, we have, by our past practice, been inviting these people to file these petitions, and by the time such a bill reaches a second reading in this chamber the individual concerned has probably spent a great deal of money, and to throw out a case then -would be a great hardship to the petitioner. But if some declaration were made in this parliament, that it was improper that these laws should hereafter be passed these petitions would not come forward thereafter. People -would be warned, and they would thereafter be advised not to file a petition with the parliament of Canada because in all probability it would not succeed.
When this matter came up last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) who was then leading the house, having heard the statements made by different members of the house against passing these bills, said in effect: That is all very well, but the same complaint comes up year after year, when some member rises and declaims against divorce in general and some against divorce in particular but nobody has ever offered any concrete proposal to the government as to what it should do except to follow the course that is being followed. Probably there is
merit in that sort of objection by the Minister of Finance. Therefore I should like to suggest that what this parliament should do if it wants to give relief to the minority in the province of Quebec which desires to have a divorce law is to set up an organization which, for want of a better name, we shall call a court sitting here perhaps in the city of Ottawa or somewhere on the right bank of the Ottawa river; and this court could deal with these cases in the same fashion and under the same procedure as they are dealt with in any court in any other part of Canada. It might not, perhaps, pronounce divorce. It might be objectionable to have a court in Ontario pronouncing divorce on people in another province; it might be so; I am not sure that that is the fact. But at any rate that court could proceed as though it had power to decree divorce; it could hear the evidence; it could have at its command the usual officers of a court who might be able to check up where any checking up was necessary; and perhaps, at the conclusion of its hearing, instead of passing a divorce decree it could recommend that there should be a divorce declared. Upon that sort of inquiry, and where that sort of recommendation was given respecting whatever number of cases might come before it, in such a case as that, this parliament could act and not take up time in the same way as has been the case hitherto. That court could have a certain number of officers; it could have the usual court machinery.	_
Any person who has been reading the divorce proceedings which come before this parliament year in and year out-if anyone wrere stalwart enough to stay with it year in and year out-would be bound to declare that these divorces in large measure are probably not what they seem, not what they purport to be. In all these cases, for example, the usual declaration in this sort of law is made, that there is not any collusion between the parties Well, in the provinces where there is divorce jurisdiction, when there is a suggestion of collusion the judge acts on it and refers the case to the attorney general of the province, and there is some chance of investigation. But in the way we are now dealing with the matter there is no chance of investigation. Once the declaration is made, that settles the matter. Moreover, there is not any waiting period; when the decree of divorce is granted here it is both original and final at the very time of the declaration. As a matter of fact, I believe the only sort of thing that could be done in a case where a fraud was perpetrated, upon what we might term our parliamentary court would be an action in the nature of a perjury charge.
Private Bills-Divorce

But where there is a court, with the usual court machinery, and where there is an attorney general to whom matters of this sort can be referred in his capacity of king's proctor, as it is called, there is some chance of seeing that there is not a fraud on the procedure.
I should not like to charge any particular ' person who has secured a divorce from the parliament of Canada, but these cases are so similar, peas in a pod not being more similar than these cases, that it is very' difficult for any person to believe that there is n-ot collusion between the parties. As a matter of fact, you get the records of evidence of these divorce cases sent to you and they are fastened with a little wire staple. If that wire staple were ever to come out and the pages got lost you would not need to worry about it; you could put in any of the pages out of any one of the other books.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Did you read the Montgomery case?


Ralph Maybank: The one the hon. gentleman refers to is distinguished by a few characteristics which are not common to most of them. I do not know to what case he is referring but I know what he said about it is correct. You can shuffle these pages around; you can take page 18 out of book 95, insert it into book 96 and then read book 96, and you will not even notice that you have the two cases mixed up. They are all just the same.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to stop the hon. member, but I wish to raise a point of order. The hon. member is discussing divorce cases in general. What we have before us is a particular divorce case or divorce cases. Supposing we had a bill here for the building of a bridge; I do not think it would be in order to discuss bridges all over the world as something pertaining to this bill.
I suggest to you that all this discussion is out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker,-


Angus MacInnis: We are not here to be amused. May I have your ruling, Mr. Speaker?


Ralph Maybank: I had desired-


James Horace King: The hon. member has a right to speak on the point of order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do they have
divorces in Japan?


Angus MacInnis: We will send the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) there to find out.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, no; you people already have your expensos paid there. That will hold you for a while. You had all expenses paid over there. Oh, yes, you did.


Ralph Maybank: If the hon. member for Vancouver will permit me-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Vancouver East.


Ralph Maybank: If the hon. member for Vancouver East will permit an interruption of the discussion on Japan, I wish to say just a word on the point of order which he has raised. I submit, sir, that the particular bill which is before the house-


An hon. MEMBER:: "Bill"?


Ralph Maybank: The particular bill for the relief of this person who ought to be a litigant is based upon certain principles, and it is those principles I am discussing. He raises the question that if we were discussing the building of a bridge one should not be permitted to talk about the general principles of bridge building all over the world or in some place away from the .particular situs of the bridge to be built. I submit he is quite wrong in that, because after all even such a type of discussion as that could easily come within the four corners of the matters to be considered in connection with the particular bill itself. It seems to me that surely in discussing whether or not we shall pass a bill, shall make a law which is a divorce, which is a particular divorce, it is germane to that subject to discuss the general principles of divorce itself and the procedure whereby divorce is obtained. I submit, sir. that I am entirely in order, but of course I shall bow to your ruling upon the point.


Mr. IRVINE:: I should like to say one word with your permission, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. I suggest that if the hon. gentleman wants to prevent divorce bills from coming before this parliament he has every right to bring in such a bill, but the bill before us now is to give relief to a certain petitioner. I wonder if he is in favour of the relief or not. That is what he should be talking about. But what he is talking about is whether parliament has the right to discuss such a bill as this.
Mr. LOUIS RENE BEAUDOIN (Vaudreuil-
Soulanges) (Translation): Mr. Speaker if I remember rightly, during the last session the leader of the party with which is associated the hon. member who has just raised a point of order did himself raise an objection, at the very moment when the house was called upon to vote on a large number of divorce bills. The
Private Bills-Divorce
same thing is happening to-day. At that time, as I recollect it-and I ask the hon. members to correct me if I am wrong-the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) in raising objections about the divorce bills that had been introduced, did not limit his remarks to the bills placed on the orders of the day, but he also discussed the procedure and all the circumstances which surround the introduction of such bills, as well as their passage in the senate, in the divorce bills committee and in the house of commons. That is why I have risen to speak on that point of order. My purpose is to remind my hon. friend that he should merely follow the course taken by his leader in this connection. To my mind, the hon. member who has the floor does not transgress the rules of the house in discussing the matter the way he does.
(Text):


James Horace King: The hon. member is perfectly in order in discussing the principle of divorce in connection with these bills. He is drawing the attention of the house to the fact that a number of divorce bills come from the province of Quebec, the only province in which there is not a divorce court, and he is discussing the question whether it would be wise to take steps to correct a situation which may need to be corrected. These remarks are relevant to the bills actually before the house.


Ralph Maybank: I have noted, Mr. Speaker, your remarks to the effect that nearly all these bills come from the province of Quebec. I think I should hasten to say that this large number of divorce cases that have been coming to parliament for the last two or three years do not come exactly from the province of Quebec in the sense of being scattered throughout that province. They come, almost all of them, from one part of Quebec, the large city of Montreal, and it would seem that the general level of virtue of other parts of the province of Quebec than the city of Montreal is very much higher.


Mr. ABBOTT:: A wholly unjustified conclusion.


Ralph Maybank: The Minister of National Defence appears to take umbrage at what I have said. I am willing to tell him that a member from another part of Quebec to whom I made a similar statement, said, "Oh, no. I think your conclusion is unjustified. The fact of the matter is that, in the community in which I live, we just don't bother about that." They are more touchy in Montreal.
I was saying, at the time the point of order was raised, that there is so great a similarity in these cases that there would appear to me to
be collusion, and that, I submit, is due to the very nature of the system itself, the plan we are following. If you take the evidence from one case and insert it into the book giving the evidence of another you will not find any difference. It reminds me of what G. K. Chesterton said of the writings of Charles Dickens', that he had: not written a series of novels but a mythology, because you could take any one of his characters from any one of his books and put him into another book and he would be perfectly at home. Those who are devotees of Dickens would agree, I believe, that Micawber could have been just as well in "Bleak House" as in "David Copper-field," and various other characters could be taken from their present settings and put somewhere else.
However that may be, that is something of the general nature of the cases as we have them before us under the system we are following. Therefore in moving bills for the relief of the persons concerned, I make a representation to the government that it should now give consideration to a different method of handling this particular problem. I suggest that we might have a court set up here, or something in the nature of a commission, to deal with these cases, and it could submit its report to parliament and that report be acted upon.
So far as the particular cases are concerned,
I do not think it would be fair to rule them out, and lor that reason, as chairman of the committee that handled these matters, I am moving the second reading of these bills. If we were to throw out particular cases by reason of the general objection to this way of handling divorce it would work a hardship, and I should not desire to see that. I desire, however, to see the government try to find a different way of handling the problem so that we might get away from what is, I suggest, becoming farcical-the method by which we have so far been handling the divorce problem.


Mr. W. G. CASE (Grey North) :: Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to diyorce, but I am opposed to the two bills we are considering for second reading, in common with' all the bills of the same nature that come before this parliament. I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) inasmuch as I believe that the method employed is wrong. I feel, if my hon. friend who is sponsoring the bills would cease interrupting me-


Ralph Maybank: I rise to a point of order.
I have never at any time interrupted the hon. gentleman. I am the sponsor and I never interrupted him at all.

Private Bills-Divorce


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The name of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) is associated with two of these bills on the order paper, and I did not intend that the member for Winnipeg South Centre should receive the rebuke, so to speak, implied in what I said. I was looking at the bills and the name of my hon. friend and deskmate was associated with two of them.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if anyone wishes to inform himself on this question, if he will take the forty-seventh report of the senate of Canada with reference to the petition of Edward Mortin Montgomery for a bill of divorce from Edna Maud Wolfrey Montgomery he cannot help feeling that there must be, as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has said, some degree of collusion, because here you have a man who admits he is the co-respondent and who stands up and brazenly admits facts before a committee of the senate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Quote the evidence.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I would, naturally, hesitate to repeat the evidence. I am not familiar with the method employed in securing such evidence but I make this suggestion. I am not going to join with my hon. friend in suggesting that there is more virtue in other parts of Quebec than there is in the city of Montreal, but I feel that there is some concern about the disposition which is made of the children of a union, and as I read the evidence from the senate committee, I have yet to find any place where, in the past, there has been any disposition made, any security offered for the children. I understand that this feature of the application is settled before they appear before the senate committee; that there has been a bill of separation under which certain payments are required to be paid by the applicant, and that in all probability he is seeking not only relief in the matter of dissolution of his marriage but relief from these payments which he has been required to make.
As a newcomer I would not wish to present my views in parliament in a dogmatic way, but I have said before there must be some more practical method employed which will seek to secure the evidence, place it on record in a proper court where disposition of the case can be made, where security can be guaranteed for the children, thereby raising the whole divorce problem to a higher level.
I feel that I should make these observations with respect to the bills we now have before us. When the bills come up for second reading, instead of an ordinary doormat being made of the House of Commons, we should

be completely informed of all the circumstances. These bills should not be run through as if in a mill, because we may be doing something wrong. I feel rather conscious about this. I hope when the time arrives that I have to make my decision I shall be able to make it intelligently. I make these observations for the consideration of the House of Commons, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, in order that parliament may give consideration to some method to set up a national divorce court, not necessarily along the banks of the Ottawa river but somewhere where people can go to obtain relief and a sense of security for the children.


William Irvine: Since it is in order to discuss whether or not we should have divorce bills brought before this parliament I wish to say a word. Twenty years ago I was very much interested in this question-


An hon. MEMBER:: You are older now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Irvine: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that I amuse the house unwittingly, but I can assure the hon. gentlemen that from the point of view of what is in their minds I am still interested. The records will show-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Irvine: I still say, sir, that the records of this house will show that the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth put up a strenuous fight, and I helped him the best way I could, to have all divorce bills removed from parliament, because the whole procedure was a travesty of justice. This parliament is not organized to consider properly and thoroughly the cases that come before it in that way. There is no provision made for the care of the children who may be involved. The courts of the provinces are the proper places to which to discuss these cases. I still hold the view I held twenty years ago. The fact that I raised no objection to the bill does not mean that I am satisfied that this is the best place to discuss divorce bills. We managed to have the divorce cases of all provinces except those of Quebec taken out of parliament. This parliament must take the responsibility for not removing these cases also. I suggest to you, sir, that it is high time that all divorce cases be removed from parliament. Hon. members who decided to discuss the procedure of this house in matters of divorce, instead of discussing the actual bill before us, should bring in a bill or resolution to deal with this matter separately and have it finally removed from parliament.
Private Bills-Divorce
When that bill or resolution is brought down I am sure that hon. gentlemen opposite will vote against it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to say a word on this matter and to make myself understood by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine). One of the things the people of my riding cannot understand is how I take advice from him. Another thing they cannot understand is why we have no time to discuss such vital things as subsidies on milk and-


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: The price of strawberries.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, and such vital things as-


Mr. BOUCHER:: The red curtain over
peaches.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We can take time in and out-but I have only twenty minutes to fill in-to discuss divorce bills. I am getting a lot of assistance around here. We can take all this time to discuss divorce bills but we cannot find time to discuss other vital matters. I want the hon. member for Cariboo to know that I was pot elected to come here and discuss divorce bills. I am neither competent nor have I the time to do that.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are not competent,


George Alexander Cruickshank: My hon. friend
here says I am not competent. Probably the reason I am not competent is that I come from the most beautiful spot in the Dominion of Canada. Hon. members may have heard of Atlantic City; they also may have heard that once a year a competition is held to discover Miss America. I wish to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, and, through you to the House of Commons, that each and every fair girl in the Fraser Valley is a Miss Fraser Valley far surpassing any Miss America in Atlantic City. We do not have to worry about anything like that.
Some time ago this government, of which I am a supporter, brought in legislation not to encourage divorce but to discourage it. They did everything they could to promote family life. Of course I am speaking of family allowances. Why should we have divorces? May I say that at any time I will vote to prevent divorce bills from being brought before the House of Commons.
Having had some experience with lawyers, which always cost me money because they generally lost my cases, I can understand their point of view. I can understand the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) because I sympathize with anyone who has to live in
Carleton. I was coming down town on the street-car this morning. As hon. members know, the street-cars are crowded in Ottawa.
I left around half-past seven o'clock to get down to my office at eight o'clock. The streetcars are old. What I have to say has some connection with these divorce cases. As I entered the car I noticed a dear old lady with grey hair sitting in a comfortable seat. She saw me get on and that I had no seat, so she got up and gave me hers. It was one of the old cars they got from Toronto; and any time you get anything given you from Toronto you can be sure it is old. Any hon. members who travel on the Bank street-cars know they are old; this particular seat was worn out, and there was a hollow in the middle. When this very dear old grey-haired lady got up to give me the seat I noticed that in the other half of the seat there was a very pretty girl; and I had to slide into the seat. According to the evidence I read in one of these cases from Montreal, that could have been grounds for divorce. That is why I think every one of these cases should be explained, because they are not all the same.
What I started to say was this. I can understand lawyers doing a lot of things, because if I were a lawyer I would do them myself. If you are a lawyer you get $50 for the first hour; after that there is a discount and the client is charged only $37.50 for the next half-hour. But I cannot understand the names of hon. members appearing on the order paper in this connection. I see after bill No. 37 the name "Mr. Boucher" and the initials "E. F."; I do not know what that means. I understand the hon. member for Carleton sponsored this bill. I can never understand why a member should sponsor a divorce bill in this house, because to me it is a very serious thing to sponsor anything. For instance, I am sponsoring higher prices for everything the farmer produces, but I do not get a chance to say so here; I am called out of order if I say we should increase the subsidies on milk and strawberries and peaches, and so on. This is very much in connection with divorce, because at the time I happened to mention peaches I had a letter from a farmer in Ontario. In this province they put a little gauze over the peaches, and this producer in writing to me said that this gauze reminded me of much of the evidence in these divorce bills.
That reminds me that I came through Alberta the other day. I have often wondered as to the grounds for divorce. I have been to Toronto; I have even been through Saskatchewan, so that I can understand why there should be divorces in some parts of
Private Bills-Divorce

Canada, but I can never understand why there should be any suggestion of divorce in Alberta. Next to the Fraser valley Alberta is one of the finest districts you could ever see, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will visit it some time. Out in Alberta you are right under the foothills.
I wish to speak about the McGregor case; perhaps I should go into the details of it. It was always my understanding that bills coming before this house were supposed to be studied and read by all hon. members. For instance, I am perfectly well aware of the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver East and the Secretary of State never read that section of the bill we were discussing this afternoon before it was brought in here. If they had read it before they would have realized that- something was wrong, and could have come to me to have it fixed up. In my opinion, every bill that comes into this house should be studied and read. I have not had a chance to study this bill No. 37 introduced by the hon. member for Carleton, but I did have time to read the McGregor case, and I want to suggest that this case should be read by every hon. member. The McGregor case, or maybe it is the Montgomery case-I know it was a Scotch name-was a wonderful case. I have read all these bills, for the reason that I am interested in this matter. For two years I represented the riding of Vancouver North, in addition to my own riding, while my good friend and room-mate was overseas. Those hon. members who have been overseas, particularly those who have been in Sicily or in Africa, know how desolate it is out there in the desert, with nothing to do but watch the sand drift by. In order to keep my hon. friend well informed I would send him copies of Hansard, so that he might have something to read to his fellow members of the air force. But I knew Hansard was not very interesting, because so often it contained the remarks of the C.C.F. members, so that I used to send him these divorce bills. On them I always marked, "With the compliments of George Cruickshank", and my name became so familiar overseas that when these men returned home they automatically voted for me.
Speaking particularly to bill No. 37, I should like to ask the hon. member for Carleton a few questions. Are there any children in this ease? If so, how many? How old are they? Are they under proper supervision and care if this divorce should be granted? How long has the hon. member known them?


James Horace King: .Order, I have allowed the hon. gentleman 'a great deal of latitude 
to make his point and discuss the divorce bills which are before the house, but I think he is pretty far away from them now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was just coming to that, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas John Bentley: If I may ask the hon. gentleman a question, I was just wondering if in the few minutes left at his disposal he would be disposed to make a recommendation that a divorce be arranged between the Canadian wheat board and the Winnipeg grain exchange.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That question is out of order, but I will answer it when I am through asking these questions. Perhaps, however, after the hon. member for Carleton has given me this information, it will be possible for the hon. member who asked me the question to tell me when there will be a divorce between the Labour Progressives and the C.C.F. party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I should like to ask the hon. member this question in connection with this divorce.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is to be permitted deliberately to obstruct the business of the house. Some time ago he admitted that he had only twenty minutes to speak, to waste. I wish to speak on this divorce matter, not in the foolish manner we are now listening to but seriously, and I find I am not going to be able to take a few moments to express myself.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I object to the point of order.


James Horace King: Order.


James Herbert Matthews: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am asking if an hon. member is to be permitted deliberately to obstruct the business of the house, as the hon. member is doing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of privilege, I am accused of deliberately doing something.


James Horace King: Order. Has the hon. member finished stating his point of order?


James Herbert Matthews: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. gentleman is a very good friend; as a matter of fact he belongs to the same faith that I do, and I forgive him a lot. He imputes things to me which I know he will regret to-morrow.
I am sure he would not want to deprive

Private Bills-Divorce
either the member for Fraser Valley of the opportunity to ask a few questions, or the hon. member for Carleton of the right to give the answers. I have already given an answer to my good friend. Long before you were even nominated, years before you were elected, I was speaking in this house and opposing the principle of divorce bills. So far as I am concerned, I have given an assurance of what I will do, if this ever comes to a vote.
If the house wall just let me alone for a little while, I will return to a discussion of the point raised by the hon. member for Carleton. If my good friend had been elected when I was-and I have been here for years and years and years-


James Horace King: Order; the hon. member
should address himself to the Chair. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the bills before the house.


James Herbert Matthews: I
rise to a point of order, and ask for a ruling on my question. If an hon. member in the house is permitted deliberately to obstruct the business of the house, as the hon. member is now doing-


James Horace King: The hon. member has not given proof that the hon. member speaking has been trying to obstruct the business of the house. The fact that the hon. member said that he had twenty or twenty-five minutes ahead of him is no indication that he is trying to obstruct. But I would say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley that it is his duty to discuss the bill, and only that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I apologise, again.
What I meant when I referred to twenty minutes, when I made that observation, through you, sir, to some of the uninformed members, was that private bills go on only until nine o'clock. I am sorry, but Your Honour has probably not had experience enough to understand me.
However, I should like to address the Chair, and the hon. member for Carleton, through you, sir. How many children are there in this family? How old are they? Has proper provision been made for their care in the future? Are they boys and girls?


An hon. MEMBER:: Boys "and" girls?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are there any immediate relatives? That is all I have to say.


George Russell Boucher: Mr. Speaker, it is customary when a member sponsors a bill of this kind for him, before doing so, to verify the propriety of the bill and the regularity of the procedure.
As the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) may know, it is customary to have divorce bills introduced in the senate and to have them reviewed by a committee of the senate. Evidence is taken by that committee, and it is available to any member of the House of Commons who wishes to look at it After a divorce bill has been passed by the Senate, it comes to the House of Commons, at which time a member of the house on behalf of the solicitor or the applicant, is asked to sponsor the bill When the hon. member for Fraser Valley was speaking, perhaps he had in mind those fine-looking girls from the Fraser Valley, and was confusing them with the peaches concealed behind the red veils on peach baskets. Perhaps he got lost behind the veil, when he has been thinking of those good-looking girls from the Fraser Valley. It will be noted that the hon. member used the expression "came from", and because of that I would judge he has not been able to see any other good. looking girls who have remained in the Fraser Valley.
I do not think it would be wise at this time to discuss the principle of divorce bills. Rather, I would refer the hon. member to , evidence taken in the senate. I do not think we would be enhancing the prestige of parliament if we were to discuss the impropriety of bringing divorce bills before the house in this fashion. The fact of the matter is that Quebec does not have divorce courts, although I believe if they wanted to they could have them. Further, I believe it is the wish of Quebec that this parliament, not the local legislature, should handle their divorce bills. I believe, too,, that if divorce is possible in some communities we should not make it impossible in others. To those hon. members who object to the procedure in this chamber, a procedure which they may wish to describe as slip-shod, let me say that the facts of these cases have already been considered thoroughly by the senate committee, a committee composed of competent members of that house, who have recommended certain action to the House of Commons.
Each year since I have come to the house, and I believe for many years before that, the same argument has been raised by way of criticism of the manner in which we pass divorce bills. Those very members who are loudest in their criticism are the ones who are most guilty of delay; neither have they brought before the house any constructive or acceptable suggestion as to a better method of proceeding. I would recommend, therefore, that in future those members who wish to criticize procedure' in connection with

Canadian Citizenship

divorce bills in this house should rise in their places and recommend a better one. Let us have the details of any such plan, because in these critical times I do not think the people of Canada like to see their members of parliament repeat year after year almost the same objections, while at the same time failing to offer any cure.
I believe we may very well rely upon the senate committee to use good discretion in deciding whether or not divorces should be granted. Some hon. members say that a reading of divorce bills leads one to the belief that there is collusion in all of them. That, of course, is a reflection upon anyone who recommends that they come before this chamber. It is an aspersion cast upon the other house, which has approved the bills that are now before us. It casts a reflection not only upon the members involved, but also upon the solicitors.
If hon. members will reflect upon the very narrow grounds for divorce permitted in this country, they will realize that, of necessity, the evidence in each case is of a most limited nature. I do not think we as members of the House of Commons would be well advised to cast reflections upon applicants in divorce cases by offering the opinion that they are guilty of collusion, when we do not know the facts, and have no just reason for being suspicious. If there is collusion, that is sufficient to nullify any application for divorce, and there is punishment provided for those who are guilty. But let us not leave this chamber with the idea that in the majority of divorce cases there is collusion.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality and naturalization and status of aliens-Mr. Martin-Mr. Golding in the chair.
William Henry Golding: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were discussing section 37.


Thomas Reid: We were discussing the kind of ceremonies which would be held, and the questionnaires and examinations which would prevail when those applying for citizenship would appear before the courts. I had asked the minister if he had studied the United States scheme, and I had reminded him that people from about thirty-six countries were now citizens over there, a condition similar to that obtaining in Canada. My opinion

was that in no country comparable with either the United States or Canada was it more important that we should educate peoples coming from other countries.
I wish to go on record in this matter because, once this bill goes through-it is not parliament that will have anything to do with the matter . but the regulations, and everything pertaining to the measure will come under officials and under the hand of the minister. I would remind the minister that, despite all the good assurances and promises he might give to the committee, a* minister's term of office expires at some time or another and a new minister takes his place, and then all that is said, all the promises made here are gone. It is what is in the statute that governs.
I wish to draw the attention of the committee to the practice which has been followed for many years in the United States and which over the years has worked to good advantage. They have what are known as educational schools; they set a uniform examination all over the country, so that no matter what the state in which the applicant resides the examinations and answers are along the same lines from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I quote from section 356 (3) of the nationality act of 1940 of the United States:
The purpose of the educational examination shall be to determine whether the petitioner has a fair knowledge of the fundamental principles of the constitution and is qualified to assume the duties and responsibilities of a citizen of the United States. To this end the petitioner may be questioned as to (1) the principal historical facts concerning the development of the United States as a republic; (2) the organization and principal functions of the government of the United States, and of the states and local units of government, and (3) the relation of the individual in the United States to government

national, state, and local, the rights and privileges growing from that relationship, and the duties and responsibilities which result from it.
To guard against the examination being too difficult there is this proviso:
Every care shall be exercised to avoid abstruse, technical, irrelevant, and extreme questions. The language level of the questions shall be suited to the particular petitioner having regard to his educational background and the extent of his knowledge of the English language.
I bring that to the attention of the minister and the committee because I believe there is a great deal of merit in it. I think every hon. member must have had representations made to him by our own people who have criticized the method of handing out naturalization papers in the past. I have attended many courts on behalf of applicants for naturalization and have heard them being asked three or four questions: Who is your sponsor? How long have you been in this country? Are you married or single? Do you owe any
Canadian Citizenship
money? The last is usually one of the questions asked. When these are answered the recommendation for granting papers goes forward to Ottawa. It is all very well to talk about a beautiful ceremony and a big crowd of people turning out on the day the certificate is granted. That is all very nice, but I maintain that there should be some preparation of the applicant for citizenship, the very fact that he has to do a little studying will make him cherish his certificate more when he gets it than he does under the present system. I am keen about this matter and I would ask the minister to consider this suggestion seriously. He should at least tell the committee what the questions are likely to be because he must have given this matter some study. I am just afraid that the questions may vary from one province to another. But if we are looking for one citizenship all the applicants should be treated alike and there should be one system in effect from one end of the country to the other. I hope the minister will give this suggestion serious consideration.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I was interested in the
statement made by the hon. member for Eglinton just before the dinner recess. I agree with him very largely. I wondered as he spoke whether he believes that the possession of a certain standard of education should be a condition of the acquisition of citizenship in this country by those whom I think we term "new Canadians"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say "new Canadians"; I said "adult immigrants".


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think that is a much
better term. I was going to observe that the term "new Canadian", if it had been used by the hon. gentleman, which it was not, is an unfortunate name for them, because the term is liked least by those to whom it best applies. I would point out to my hon. friend and to the hon. member for Vancouver East that it is very difficult indeed to make adult education available to all newcomers because most of them get out into the remote parts of the country and are not economically very well off. They spend their time on homesteads and marginal farms, where they have to make their living far removed from the educational advantages enjoyed by those living in the cities. It may be easy enough in large cities like Toronto where people live closer together to have this type of instruction. Such a class I know was conducted in my own city for many years by a very fine and talented lady who unfortunately has been called from 63260-76i
amongst us. But such voluntary efforts, as someone has said, will not fully solve the problem.
I know the minister is in a difficult position when somebody asks him for a sort of standard school for citizenship throughout the dominion.
I would point out to the hon. member for New Westminster that there is a danger in that., type of standardization because the questions-or an approximation of them are sometimes-likely to be known beforehand, so that an. ability to answer such questions does not-necessarily mean very much.
May I say in passing that we are apt to* overlook the cultural background, and the ffiul

tural contribution that is made by a great many of these newcomers. When we do not understand another person's language we are apt to misunderstand him and I am afraid that in the past we have even been inclined to despise him. These newcomers have much to offer. We have, for instance, in this country many of the finest medical men and surgeons who have come to us in recent years from Europe but to whom we deny the right to practise their profession. I shall not go into the reasons for that, but it is not a good example of how democracy works.
In talking about democracy, I wish to make it clear that I d.o not want to be objectionable or give offence to any member of the house or anybody else but when an hon. member, a member on the government side or on any side of this house, rises up to speak for the purpose of blocking a private member's resolution saying, and I quote-[DOT]
I have only twenty minutes to waste.
-may I suggest that the people of this country, looking down upon such a scene from the galleries of this house-
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) r Order. The hon. member must confine his remarks to the section.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am talking, sir, about adult education, which is more than the hon. gentleman did. May I suggest that the people of this country, on reading the debates recording such a scene in this House of Commons, must feel that it is not only the newcomers in this country who are in need of adult education. I would blush for shame if some of these newcomers could look in here and see democracy at work in this way. Now, sir, in order or out of order, I am as sincere as any man can be in this regard, and I say to you that there is something wrong with the procedure in this house. I am only a newcomer, but I come here from the constituency of Saskatoon City-

Canadian Citizenship


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member is entirely out of order in dealing with a matter of this kind under this section, and I hope he will not persist.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall merely say this about adult education, that we are in need of it, and that we are grown men and not children, and this house and this country can judge the things that I would have said had I not been declared out of order here to-night.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I am in wholehearted agreement with section 37. I desire, however, to make a suggestion or two. I should like to say something on this section from the point of view of one who was naturalized. I believe that those who have spoken in this debate thus far; or most of them, are those who have extended the privilege of naturalization to others. I happen to be one of those who was naturalized through his father.
I entirely agree that the procedure of naturalization should be improved as the minister intends to do under this bill, and that it should no longer be just a matter of routine business to grant naturalization certificates to applicants. But it seems to me that the texts which have been prepared and suggested to the minister, although prepared in all sincerity, are perhaps somewhat too advanced. I have a copy of one of the suggested texts, and I picked out a number of *questions to indicate what type of questions may be put to applicants for naturalization. Here are a few:
1.	Do you believe in the separation of powers as outlined in the constitution?
2.	What are some of the principles of the British North America Act?
3.	Mention some kinds of property that are free from taxation.
I wonder what they are.
4.	If a grand jury does not bring an indictment can the accused person be held for trial?
5.	What are the three kinds of work to be done in governing of a country?
After listening to the dominion-provincial conference discussions, I wonder whether some people in this chamber would know how to answer that question.
6.	Explain how a bill becomes a law in Ontario.
7.	How is the Speaker of the house * chosen ?
8.	In what way is the number of members in the House of Commons determined?
9.	What must a good government have?


John Ritchie MacNicol: A Conservative majority. Mr. HLYNKA: And the last question:
10.	What are the divisions of power given by the British North America Act?

Those ten questions, Mr. Chairman, have been picked out from this text, and I personally wish to congratulate the women of the Independent Order of the Daughters of the Empire for having prepared it. It is a good text. But it has been prepared from the point of view of a person who already speaks the English language; and we must also remember that a number of our newcomers will settle in western Canada where, perhaps, they will not have the same facilities to learn the language quickly as people who live in cities.
I am afraid that if one of these texts is authorized as a text for the preparation of these applicants, and if it is made too difficult, a number of people may find it too advanced. So I suggest to the minister that great care be taken to simplify this material. As far as the questions are concerned which are embodied in this text and in another one, presented by the Canadian club of Winnipeg -I have a copy of it also-I suggest that these texts be simplified. So long as the principles of democracy are embodied in them, so long as we give these prospective citizens an understanding of our aims and the fundamental principles of Christian democracy, I believe that should be sufficient.
I should like to draw a comparison between the questions which appear in this text and some questions which I have picked at random from the Gallup polls. According to several surveys conducted in 1945 in Canada by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion, known as the Gallup poll surveys, for the purpose of gauging a knowledge of public affairs of Canadian citizens of voting age, the following facts were revealed:
1.	That 5 per cent could not name the capital city of Canada. These are our own citizens of voting age, and 5 per cent could not name our capital city.
2.	That 33 per cent could not name their own M.P. sitting in this house. And I understand that in the United States almost 50 per cent of the people could not name their local representative.
3.	That 33 per cent could not name a single cabinet minister excluding the Prime Minister. It is hard to believe that the other ministers are so unimportant as not to be remembered. Among those who could name some of the ministers the Minister of Finance was best known, because he touches their pockets more often.
4.	That 50 per cent do not know what is the population of Canada.
5.	That 33 per cent could not name three of the Ten Commandments.

Canadian Citizenship
6.	That 38 per cent could not explain what is meant by "socialism". To some socialism meant "banquets", or "parties", or "social gatherings".


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Could be.


Anthony Hlynka: Well, 38 per cent did not know it, and that after the campaign which our hon. friends to our right have carried on for so many years.
7.	That 25 per cent of the people of Canada did not know what communism stood for. Some defined it as "privacy"; others defined it as "a form of religion". It goes to show that there is something wrong even with our own people, because they have not the information which they should have.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do the Social Crediters fare?


Anthony Hlynka: There is no break-down of parties here.


Angus MacInnis: The questioner did not know social credit.


Mr. HLYNKA:: 8. That 23 per cent could not define "capitalism". Some defined it as "too much money".
9.	That 56 per cent could not define bureaucracy. Some defined it as "bedroom furniture".
10.	That 40 per cent could not explain what is meant by free enterprise. I presume many of these people have been listening to speeches delivered by our C.C.F. friends; and yet, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian people are among the greatest readers of books and newspapers in the world. How can we account then for the Gallup poll findings?
It is my personal opinion that there is nothing wrong with the intelligence of the Canadian people or, for that matter, any other people. The truth is that we do not discuss these things often enough and for that reason they do not remain in the minds of the people. Our educational system has not exactly dealt with these subjects properly either. We still teach geometry and trigonometry to girls who take up nursing. Then our radio programmes should be called upon to assist in giving the people some of the necessary information.
In view of these facts, I maintain that the various citizenship guides which have been prepared by a number of organizations should be simplified. They should be put in as simple a form as possible. It must be kept in mind that many of these people have families and it will take much of their time and energy to provide for those families.
A great number of the people we have can learn to speak a language in two or three
years, but we need people whose purpose and intentions are good and whose hearts are in the right place. Take the newly settled rural districts. The settler must devote his time to clearing and developing the land and to the building of his home and the educating of his children. That is his primary responsibility and not learning constitutional law or memorizing economic theories. We may be certain that these people will learn all about the different political parties during elections. They, will get this information free from the candidates. Some of them perhaps will even be brought to meetings by cars. The various candidates will see to that.
I appreciate the efforts that are being made by the minister in this regard to institute a system of educating these applicants and acquainting them with the principles of democracy and assisting them in the learning one of the two languages of the country. Many of them will learn the language very quickly.
I wish to point out, too, that if anyone of us happened to find himself in one of the other countries, in a country where he would have to learn the language, he would realize the difficulties. How many of us would be able to learn the language in less than five years and be able to understand, in that language, the simple elements of the constitution and also the economic principles and various matters in connection with local politics and civic affairs?
I urge it upon the government not only to invite various organizations to present these texts for this purpose but actually to assign competent individuals t-o review these texts so that we may be able to give these new applicants, the prospective citizens of Canada, in the shortest possible time, the most essential material which they need. I would also appeal to the minister not to forget western Canada in particular, because I have found in my experience that the people in the cities can learn the language much more quickly than those in the rural districts. A person living in the city can go 'to night school or get a student to assist him in learning a language, but such is not the case in the country. Out on the farms or in the bush where the nearest school may be ten, fifteen or twenty miles. It is impossible to expect those people both to learn a language and to earn a living for their families.
I have made these few observations in good faith and I would appreciate it very much, as I know the people in the west will appreciate it, if the minister would take this text as it is and simplify it a bit so as to enable these people to absorb this material. I am sure that
Canadian Citizenship

the people we will get to come to Canada to become Canadian citizens would be of the type of whom we could be proud.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The hon. member read to the committee ten questions which apparently have been asked of immigrants to this country who intend to take out citizenship. Worded as they are, there are questions which I have no doubt would present some difficulty to some members of the House of Commons. However, I am supremely glad that the hon. member did1 not include an eleventh question, "What is Christian democracy?" I am still awaiting a definition of that term.
It is interesting to note that he said that, according to the Gallup poll, only 25 per cent knew what communism was. I cannot help thinking of his leader who on one occasion said that McGill university was a hotbed of communism. I can only assume that the leader of the Social Credit party is one of the 75 per cent. I do not wish, however, to discuss the illusions of the Social Credit party; I want to get my teeth into something more solid.
The minister did make a statement to the committee about what the government intends to do in instructing, in the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship, those who come to Canada to be accepted into the Canadian family. I wish he would tell us what his intentions are as regards the use to which he intends to put the citizenship branch, a branch over which he presides.


Howard Charles Green: I think the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville was very helpful. He always makes helpful speeches, particularly on this question.
I should like to ask the minister why it is not possible to enter into an arrangement with the provinces similar to the arrangement under which youth training and vocational training are given. Let us put this thing on a proper business basis where the dominion pays its fair share of the cost of getting the teachers out in the smaller districts to take charge of this instruction. I hope that some arrangement of that kind has been made. I realize that the minister is very much in earnest about carrying out the provisions of this section. I do not wish to question the intention at all, but I thought he was indefinite this afternoon as to what plans he had made and that he was relying on voluntary groups. I am sure that they will do their part, but if this is to be done properly some financial arrangement must be made with the provinces.

I should like to know why it is not possible to do that on much the same basis as is the carrying on of youth training.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I believe that what I have to say can be better said before the minister answers. On the second reading of this bill I made a few suggestions to the minister along the lines of the suggestions that have been made by the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Vegreville. I should like to enlarge on them for a moment or two. I wonder whether the minister has considered that the difficulty of adult education in the rural areas can be easily overcome by making full use of the rural schools. I do not know of any other organization that is so well situated or strategically placed as the rural school, which is right in the community where the people are to be found. There is another reason why it can be done better there than anywhere else, namely, that these are the same institutions that the children of immigrant parents will be attending. When the children come from school a great deal of interest is shown, especially when they are beginning to learn a new language and begin to tell the parents about it. There is a far greater carryover from the school to the home in those instances than where the parents already know the language and therefore do not show as much interest and curiosity.
I would suggest to the minister that in setting up facilities he call in a delegation from the various teachers' associations in the provinces. Each province has a teachers' federation or a union. It has a different name in each province. I am sure that the officers of such an organization would be very happy to cooperate with the minister's department in advising on the best possible method of going about adult education. A great deal of it has been done in a haphazard way on a voluntary basis. I have done some of it myself, but we were always handicapped by the fact that not enough money was provided by the provincial departments and that therefore it was not possible to carry on the work to any great extent. If the minister's department could provide some assistance I am sure that the teachers' organizations of the various provinces would have a plan ready in a very short time showing the best way it could be done.


Thomas John Bentley: I was quite interested in this section because I am heartily in accord with it. Like the hon. member for Vegreville and others I wish it could be made retroactive. He was commended by the hon. member for Vancouver South and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, indicating that they approved

Canadian Citizenship
his speech, as I do. However, he might have been a little fairer and might have gone a little farther when he was speaking of the small percentage that knew what socialism was. He also said that it reflected somewhat on this group. I think I can best answer that part of his remarks by reading the first paragraph of an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of April 29, 1946, which reads as follows:
The Ignorance of the Voter
Out of every ten voters in Canada, seven cannot tell the difference between the two long-established political parties, the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take this editorial to heart, and if he cannot go back and train this 70 per cent in the historical development of these two old parties in Canada, the rise and the fall of them, he should at least start from here on the new ones and proceed to enlighten them, so that in the course of the new generations possibly a smaller percentage of'the population will be unenlightened.


Mr. POULIOT:: What is the difference between the new ones and the old ones?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. Members who have spoken have obviously expected me to say something in addition to what I have already said on this subject. As the hon. member for Vancouver South has indicated, it is not by any means as simple a task as it looks. If we had had some machinery set up long ago by which this sort of thing could be done one could state more definitely not only what one's plans are, but something about the carrying bf them out. This is a new project. The citizenship branch has been only recently transferred to the Department of the Secretary of State. That branch was set up during the war for the purpose of carrying out certain incidents connected with the prosecution of the war, and it did a grand job.
Almost as soon as I had been made Secretary of State I got in touch with the citizenship branch with the consent of the then Minister of National War Services, and suggested that it might assist us in some way in respect of the operations of the Naturalization Act. Then, when the transfer took place I was able to get more help from that section by having them devote themselves exclusively to the . particular assignment which we are discussing to-night.
The situation in the United States is by no means unknown to us. I myself have gone to twenty different places in the United States in the past seven months to see what kind of ceremonies they conduct over there, regarding not only the ceremonies but what kind of
training and information is given to potential United States citizens. In addition to that, we have had officials come from the United States who have been kind enough to sit in with us; and when I was in England recently I had the chance of discussing the question and seeing what they did through the home office there.
With regard to the United States the situation is by no means as uniform as it would appear to be. In most of the United States cities by no means is the ritual carried out on uniform lines. In the cities of New York, Chicago, Seattle, Detroit and New Jersey one finds more impressive ceremonies than perhaps in other communities of the United States. But to say that the practice is uniform throughout the United States is to say something that is not true. First of all, their regulations came into being not with the passage of the act, but they have been added to from time to time, as ours undoubtedly will be in the light of experience. They have drafted and printed manuals, two of which I have on my desk to-night. I believe the manual that has been prepared by the Daughters of the Empire in Ontario is as good as anything in the United States. The Canadian educational and citizenship council and other organizations have sent in suggested texts which it is proposed we might use. All in all, from Canadian bodies generally I believe we have something like ninety-six suggested manuals with varying measures of acceptability, indicating what kind of questions and what kind of training should be given to these citizens. The governmenf of the province of Quebec has opened evening classes for potential Canadian citizens. It is, I believe, the only province to have done so thus far.
As I said this afternoon, one of the first things we did was get in touch with the provincial ministers of education. So far we have got in touch with those of the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and we hope to be able to get in touch with the others as quickly as possible, in order to enlist their help. We cannot do this ourselves, because it must be remembered that education is a matter coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and it must be approached with that in mind. However, if the matter is approached in the proper spirit I am sure we can expect the fullest cooperation. I quite agree with what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South, that we should not simply rely on the provinces but should do something ourselves on a contributory basis, and I hope that when I come to present my requests for money with
Canadian Citizenship

which to do this very thing I may be able to get the full support of the house, because one cannot carry on work of this kind without the necessary financial support.


Howard Charles Green: Are you going to ask for that money this year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, we have a programme which has to go before the Minister of Finance, and it will come here, I trust, in due course. I am now warning in a friendly way the committee and my colleagues here that I am counting upon their support.


Donald Methuen Fleming: More supplementary
estimates!


Paul Joseph James Martin: We cannot bring in any such estimates until this bill is passed. With regard to the sort of questions to be asked and the kind of treatment to be given, I have here one of the best of the proposed manuals. I do not want to go into it in detail, but it deals with the history of the commonwealth, the history of the royal family, the history of the leading political figures of this country; men who have been prime ministers, men who have been provincial premiers, leading poets, leading musicians and so on. It asks and answers questions about our provincial governments, our federal government, the nature of the constitution, the duties of a citizen, the general history of our country, and so on. Last week I asked several of the leading historians of Canada, French, English and others, to meet with me to see if we could not get their help. All these things take time; they will not be done in a year or in several years. Anyone who thinks this is going to be done overnight, on the basis of the ambitious scheme we have in mind, I do not think appreciates exactly what we have to do. In regard tot the simplification of questions, I think that is a real problem. It is not easy to reduce questions to a common. denominator, where they will not be readily understood by all groups. As far as we can posibly make them, with the assistance of these agencies, the questions will be as understandable as possible, having in mind the various kinds of groups with which we shall have to deal.
I would not want anything I say to-night in any way to discount the work of voluntary organizations, because I believe that work is of tremendous importance. The number of teachers in this country who spend their free time teaching classes at night is simply amazing. The number of voluntary organizations doing work of that kind is such, and the work is so effective, that I would not want anything I, say to-night to belittle what is being done. The hon. member for Vegreville spoke strongly in favour of a manual on the

pattern of the United States manual. I may tell him that the manuals on which we are working are based on six different manuals issued by the United States. We have the advantage of those. We have the great advantage of the work done by the wartime informa- ' tion board in Britain and in Canada. All these manuals are before us and our officers are studying them. Through the citizenship branch we have contacts with all the newspapers of the country, particularly those in languages other than English or French, and serve them constantly with material about Canada. This information gets out to these people, and this is another way of laying before potential and Canadian citizens the sort of thing we would like them to know.
I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver East who said to-day that we should do something about the immigrants when they first come to this country, and I was very much impressed with his remarks. That is, in a sense, outside the scope of the Department of the Secretary of State, but I think the suggestion is well worth bearing in mind and certainly I shall discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources.


Howard Charles Green: Does that not come under the minister's nationality branch?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; these are people who are not citizens at all. The hon. gentleman had in mind the people when they first land here. The suggestion was that when they first enter this country they should be got in touch with at once, perhaps by means of a letter or something of that sort; that they should be given a warm welcome and told something about Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Is that not right in line with the work of the minister's nationality or citizenship branch?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is in one sense, but obviously when they first come here they are under the direction of the Minister of Mines and Resources. There may be some overlapping there, and I would not want to proceed without full consultation with him.
Here are the sort of questions that are asked: What are the duties of the executive council? What is the executive council? Then the name is spelled out, and a full explanation is given. How many members are in the legislature or parliament? Who is the Speaker? What is the Speaker of the house? What is the term of office of the Premier or Prime Minister? One could go on with these questions ad infinitum, but I merely mention them to show that the department is fully aware of the nature of the problem, and I
Canadian Citizenship
can only repeat that we shall do our utmost to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. I was glad to hear hon. members express themselves as they did to-day, because I will count on them to support the department when it seeks to make more effective the operations of a branch of o.ur work which we all admit to be of tremendous importance.


Jean-François Pouliot: What the minister has said is sound, and he deserves to be congratulated upon having said it. The book that is put into the hands of the immigrants must be simply written and not too long. It should be in several languages, so that the information it contains may be easily accessible to those who will read it. The book should be attractive, also, and should contain a few pictures.


James Sinclair: Of whom?


Jean-François Pouliot: Of the dead, because the living may be seen in person, and there is no flattery when we praise the dead. I do not know at all the publication issued by the I.O.D.E., but I know one book which has been published by a distinguished journalist, Mr. George Hambleton. I do not remember the title, but it was published by the information board, and was one of the few excellent publications coming from that source. It is a small booklet containing all information about the government. Then the province of Ontario has gone to the expense of publishing an excellent manual to inform students about the fundamentals of Canadian governments, all Canadian governments. It is more complete than Mr. Hambleton's book, and is very well done. We have already a publication that is not Very big, but gives a great deal of interesting information. It is called "Canada, 1946", and is published every year. But I would warn the minister, when I think of the discussion that has taken place in the house in the last few days, that the writing of the history of Canada must be unbiased and must not be inflammatory; and that that will be a difficult task.
There are many ways of writing the history of a country. One method is followed in the United States, where they put aside all the dirty spots. I challenge anyone to find in the textbooks which contain the history of the United States any reference to the assassination of de Jumonville by Washington. It is not recorded, because Washington was the father of his country, and could not commit any error.
We have two schools of thought in Quebec. One expresses the opinion that French-speaking Canadians have always been persecuted,
and the other expresses the contrary view that every liberty we have in this country has been graciously offered to us on a silver platter. Both opinions are untrue; and if there are some writers who contend that all our liberties were offered to our ancestors on a silver platter, it means that those who fought for responsible government had no reason for doing so because everything was given to them without their even asking for it.
There is another thing to which I would direct the attention of the Secretary of State, and this would affect, not the immigrants, but those who have been here with their families for a long time, and who intend to stay here and to be informed on Canadian history. Most historians are commentators, and could be compared with those we hear over the radio in the evenings. Some are interesting; others are not. But the minister is well read, having achieved success not only in the universities on this continent, but also in those in Europe. He will probably agree with me that the man who has done the most for the history of Canada in this country is my old friend Sir Arthur Doughty, dominion archivist. He wrote many books of history, one of which was "Canada and its Provinces". He published many of those books, with Sir Adam Shortt and others. They were very fine publications. He also published some books for children, one of which was called The Lily and the Rose", along with some others He was a real savant, and a pleasant man.
But his greatest work was to begin, with Sir Adam Shortt, the publication of constitutional documents. Two or three of those books have been published at various intervals. They contain the texts of all official publications and are available to all scholars or students who wish to do some work or to throw some light on a certain period of history.
How can any man come here to work in our library? It is a very fine library, but there is the noise of the wooden floor. Then the librarians have to go up into the galleries, like birds on the branches of a tree. When they get there the light is bad. Then, when they need another book they must descend two or three flights of stairs or ladders. It is a continual process of climbing and going down, all the time. The most precious collection of newspapers we have in this country is down in the cellar, alongside the pipes which heat the building. It is impossible to go there in the winter time, and in the summer it is filled with that moisture which destroys the pages of the papers.
Who could work there? It is not available to us. When we have those books, then anyone who wishes to study a certain period

i 206
Canadian Citizenship

could have at his disposal two or three books in his office or his room, and could do some intelligent work. For many years there was no excuse for stopping that publication, and I find I can say that to the minister because he was not in charge of the department at the time.
There was complete, darkness concerning the past. Now, however, we have small reports which mean nothing, and which are interested in little stories or fairy tales which come from the archives. The dress worn by the queen has been exhibited over there, but when we want information we have to fight for it. I must thank the minister, however, because sometimes I get it through him.
When Sir Arthur Doughty was alive the archives meant something; light came from there. Many people will not appreciate that. However, I urge upon the minister to have in the supplementary estimates an amount for the continuation of the publication of those constitutional documents, not for the immigrants, but for those who will be ready to do some voluntary teaching. The teacher must know more than his pupil. Perhaps this will be a means of enlarging and broadening the views of some of our fellow citizens, when they realize what our common ancestors, English as well as French-speaking, had to undergo in obtaining responsible government.
The Durham report has not yet been published. The selection of papers to be published in the constitutional documents should be made by one who is not a fanatic, one who Is not bigoted, one who knows his history well. If it is to be partial, I do not want it; it must be complete. It is only by being complete thal it will open the minds of those who are of good faith, who have been wrongly informed until now, but who are ready to listen to the true facts about the past.
History repeats itself. We may reach times when similar difficulties may arise, as they did in the past, and then the light from the past may come, provided that it is not obliterated in any way. The minister has proven that he is a great man in understanding the importance of the matter and being willing to do something in regard to what he has said. I shall not insist further. I consider it of the utmost importance, and since its importance has been realized I am thankful to the minister for having promised something in the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 38-Proceedings in court.
fMr. Pouliot.l
Howard Charles Green: This deals with appropriate ceremonies for welcoming new citizens into citizenship. Has any consideration been given to inviting natural-born Canadians who have reached the age of twenty-one to participate in these ceremonies? I realize that that could not be made compulsory, that the dominion government would have no power to make such a provision, but I think it would be very helpful if young native-born Canadians were invited to take part in the ceremony.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I have attended
eleven of these ceremonies and at three of them it was suggested to the officers of the department that that very thing should be done. It was done at a ceremony in Toronto, at one in Montreal and at one in my own city. In one place there were over three hundred of these young Canadians present.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 39-Regulations.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have an amendment to propose as subsection 2. It will be observed that section 39 makes provision for regulations to be made by the governor in council in regard to a number of subjects, but no provision is made in the section for tabling in parliament the regulations so made, and my amendment would provide:
That section 39 be amended by adding thereto as subsection 2 the following:
All such regulations shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made if parliament is then sititng, or if parliament is not then sitting, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps Mr. Chairman,
you would take that as notice of an amendment to be moved in just a moment because I have an amendment to add a new subsection 2.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am glad to let mine stand as notice of an amendment to be moved later, after the minister's.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources to move that section 39 be amended by adding as subsection 2:
(2) The governor in council may
(a)	authorize the issue of a proclamation declaring that any part of His Majesty's dominions not listed in the first schedule to this act, is a country of the British commonwealth for the purposes of this act;
(b)	designate persons in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon territory who shall constitute courts for the purposes of this act.


James Allison Glen: I move accordingly.

Canadian Citizenship


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will that be capable of extension if-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a small "d".


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would include any part of the empire? You are not confining it to the self-governing nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not if others are added. This gives power to add them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am a little concerned about the significance of "dominions" with a small "d." After all, the scheme of the bill in the light of section 2 (g) and the first schedule is to confine the measure in those respects to the self-governing member nations of the commonwealth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am told by the law
officers that this is the proper way to designate it. .


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it still the intention as
I have described it that it shall be confined to the self-governing nations of the commonwealth?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Countries with their own
nationality legislation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the Chairman
please read paragraph (b) of the amendment relating to persons in the Northwest Territories?


William Henry Golding: It reads:
(b) designate persons in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon Territory who shall constitute courts for the purposes of this act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason for that is
that there are no judges in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and we have to designate somebody.


Howard Charles Green: Is not paragraph (a) of the amendment covered by section 2(g), which reads:
(g) "country of the British commonwealth" means for the purposes of this act a country listed in the first schedule to this act or a country declared for the purposes of this act to be a country of the British commonwealth of nations by proclamation issued under this act, and includes, in the case of any such country, all colonies, dependencies or territories thereof.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was put in because
of the argument my hon. friend opposite made the other night which I thought had merit in it, that there was no enabling power in the bill itself with regard to paragraph (g). Amendment agreed to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to accept, the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton of which he gave notice if he will move it now as subsection 3.
63260-77^


Donald Methuen Fleming: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Reid: Would the minister explain
why in some sections it is provided that "The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, shall take" certain measures, as appears in section 37, and then in other sections it is simply provided that "The governor in council may make regulations". What is the distinction between the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, and the governor in council acting?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In section 37 it is a matter of taking measures, and in section 39 it is a matter of issuing regulations. In the one case it is thought desirable that it should be left to the department.


Anthony Hlynka: I should like to take one
or two minutes on section 39 (h). What I have to say is an important matter to those citizens who have been naturalized. I should like to deal briefly with a matter and, perhaps, seek information on the advisability of setting up a branch of the minister's department to deal with it, or of assigning it to the Department of External Affairs. It is a matter having to do with birth certificates. As hon. members know, birth certificates are issued by vital statistics bureaux in each of the provinces. In my experience with vital statistics bureaux I have found that they can handle the problems of Canadian-born citizens well enough, and that is their job, but when it comes to the matter of birth certificates of persons who were born outside of Canada, the people have to go to foreign legations and are subjected to questioning.
To take myself as an example, I was about three years old when I was brought to Canada by my father, and the births of all the members of our family who were born on the other side of the ocean happen to have been recorded on one birth certificate, in Latin. If I want to go to the United States or if I require a birth certificate I would have to go to-day to the Soviet legation and be subjected to questioning, in spite of the fact that I never in my life had anything to do with the Soviet Union. At the time I was born there was no Soviet Union, but during this war the Soviet Union annexed the territory in which I was born. It seems to me that something should be done about cases of this kind, because I receive a good number of letters from Canadian citizens from all parts of the country, some of whom have been here for twenty years and more, asking me to assist them in obtaining their birth certificates. What can be done
Canadian Citizenship

in this matter? It is very important. Could not the Secretary of State, consulting perhaps with the Department of External Affairs, undertake a service to provide birth certificates to persons who want them, so that either the Secretary of State's Department or the Department of External Affairs would make proper investigation, sehrch immigration and naturalization records and so forth, and establish what the age of the particular person may be. I desire to bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and I hope that he will take it up with the Department of External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you very much. I will have that matter taken up.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 40-Evidence of declarations.


John George Diefenbaker: Just by way of suggestion, I am wondering whether or not it would facilitate proof in both sections 40 and 41 if a provision were made that it is unnecessary to produce the authority of the delegated officer to grant the certificate: in other words, if in section 40, after the word "behalf" in line 14, there were added these words, "without proof of such authorization."


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you. I accept that.


Thomas Reid: Will there be any difference between the new naturalization certificates issued to the new Canadians as compared with the old naturalization certificates which have been issued, some by the provinces and some [DOT] by the federal government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. The exact form has not been determined, but we hope to have them a little more convenient in size, too.


Thomas Reid: Will facilities be provided by which those who have been in the country for years, such as myself, will be able to obtain the certificate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I explained that the other night.


Thomas Reid: By application to the minister?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, to the Secretary of State.


William Henry Golding: Section 40 is carried.


John George Diefenbaker: As amended.


William Henry Golding: There is no amendment to section 40.


John George Diefenbaker: I move:

That there be added after the word "behalf" in line 14 the words "without proof of such authorization."


Paul Joseph James Martin: That amendment is acceptable.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 41-Evidence of certificate.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I move, following the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre: That after tile words "in that behalf" there be added the words "without proof of such authorization."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
On section 43-Question of domicile, how determined.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Just a question. I take it that it is the desire of the minister to have in this statute when it becomes law as complete a code as possible in relation to the whole question of citizenship, nationality and naturalization. Does he think it is wise to introduce some important provisions of the Immigration Act by reference in this way? Would it not be simpler to set forth these provisions in this section? After all, the Immigration Act mayr be changed; and there was an improvement made in this bill, in my humble opinion, as compared with the version which the minister introduced in the fall session last year, when in section 2, subparagraph (j) he brought into this bill a definition instead of trying to incorporate a reference to another statute. Would not the same proceeding be advisable here?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is purely transitional and its provocations will soon disappear. It was thought this was the best way to deal with this situation; otherwise it would be highly complicated.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 44 agreed to.
On section 45-Acts repealed.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to ask the Minister of Mines and Resources to move: That clause 45 of Bill 7 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection, as subsection
(2):
"(2) Where, in any act of the parliament of Canada or any order or regulation made thereunder, any provision is made applicable in respect of
(a) a "natural-born British subject" it shall apply in respect of a "natural-born Canadian citizen," or

Canadian Citizenship
(b)	a "naturalized British subject" it shall apply in respect of a "Canadian citizen other than a natural-born Canadian citizen" or
(c)	a "Canadian national" it shall apply in respect of a "Canadian citizen," under this act and where in any act, order or regulation aforesaid any provision is made in respect of the status of any such person as a Canadian national or British subject it shall apply in respect of his status as a Canadian citizen or British subject under this act.
I am prepared to give the explanation now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Explain it and let it stand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the house rose at six o'clock I said that when we came to this section I would deal with an amendment to set at rest any fears there might be as to the possible effect of the present bill upon the orders in council concerning the Japanese in Canada.
Let me say, first of all, that' there was no intention whatever that this bill should be connected with or affect in any way the operating of the policy with respect to the orders in question. That is a distinct and separate matter. A permanent measure with regard to the general status of citizenship should not be related in any way to such temporary provisions that affect only a small and restricted class. Moreover, so far as the actual effect of the bill as now drafted is concerned, we are convinced, after careful consideration, that it would not affect in any way the effectiveness of the deportation orders.
The matter has been most carefuly examined and I am certain that this is so. However, I can see what is disturbing some hon. members. The point that they have in mind is that the orders in council were passed in respect of persons who had a certain status- in actual fact, in respect of persons who had three different types of status; for some were natural-born in this country, some were naturalized and some were aliens.
The last group we can forget about. They are clearly and unmistakably not affected b}' the bill in any way. I am not admitting that orders of deportation are affected by this bill, but certainly this last group are clearly not affected. Thus, it is really two groups of persons about whom some hon. members are concerned: Japanese persons born in Canada and Japanese persons who were naturalized here. At the time the orders in council were passed these persons were respectively natural-born British subjects and naturalized British subjects. After the bill is passed, these groups of people will be respectively natural-born Canadian citizens and naturalized Canadian citizens.
The question is: Will the new status affect in any way the operation of the earlier orders?
That is the point which hon. members have in mind. With regard to this matter, let me say that I think the merits of the policy should not enter into the consideration of this question in any way. The problem is a general problem-for there are some other acts and orders now in existence which deal with persons as "British subjects" or "Canadian nationals", and the same questions can arise in respect of them.
In other words, the amendment will deal not only with the particular situation but. with any other situation that may possibly be in existence. Does this bill by changing the status of such people affect in any way the operation of such acts or orders? It is perfectly clear that this bill could not alter the operation of such acts or orders. If such alterations were to occur, we would create an unplanned and totally unpredictable effect on a totally unknown number of acts and orders. What we want is that their effect shall not be disturbed. In the light of the points that have been raised and of the considerations which I have mentioned, I think the situation as it now stands leaves a measure of doubt that should not exist, so that I have suggested the amendment which I have brought forward, which I think takes care of the situation completely.
The effect of the amendment which I have asked my colleague to move will be to provide that where an act or order now in force refers to a group of persons it shall continue to refer to the same group under their new status. For example, people who were born in Canada and who are now natural-born British subjects will hereafter be natural-born Canadian citizens. If an act now refers to natural-born British subjects it should hereafter include application to natural-bom Canadian citizens. In other words, the amendment will provide for a parallel adaptation of existing acts and orders to the new classes of status that will result from the present bill.
The amendment is one that deals with an extremely complicated situation, but it has been carefully drafted and considered and it is, I think, the soundest way of doing what we have in mind. The section will stand.
Section stands.
On section 46-Saving.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: I was surprised and gratified to hear what the Secretary of State said in regard to the amendment to section 45 and, since he has allowed it to stand, we can examine it more carefully. It has not been carried?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.
izW
Canadian Citizenship


John Lambert Gibson: To assist the minister with the two clauses that he has allowed to stand, 16 and 17, I should like to move the following clause to be added to section 46. It would be subsection 3:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, for a period of twenty years from the proclamation thereof, no person of Japanese ancestry, whether natural born, naturalized or Japanese alien, shall be allowed to reside in that section of British Columbia presently known as the coastal security zone.
I hear some hon. members say that the amendment is out of order. -


Edmund Davie Fulton: Pay no attention.


John Lambert Gibson: I feel that should the government be unwilling to accept this proposal I would be justified in believing that they never had any intention of trying to carry out the. undertaking which I believe the Minister of Veterans Affairs made in good faith in the recent election in British Columbia and that his colleagues have not supported him in his sincere and honest statement that no Japanese would be allowed from the Rockies to the sea in British Columbia and


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment should be read to the committee before it is debated. We cannot discuss the amendment until it is before the committee.


William Henry Golding: There is an amendment before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Not to this section.


William Henry Golding: I shall read the amendment as proposed by the hon. member. Mr. Gibson moves that:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, for a period of twenty years from the proclamation thereof, no person of Japanese ancestry, whether natural-born, naturalized or Japanese alien, shall be allowed to reside in that section of British Columbia presently known as the coastal security zone.


Angus MacInnis: Would the Chairman give an opinion now as to whether or not the amendment is in order? My opinion is that the amendment cannot be in order; that it is not related in any way to naturalization or to any provision of this bill, and consequently it must be out of order.


James Sinclair: May I be permitted to speak on the point of order? The explanatory note of section 46 is "saving". I understand that earlier in the debate the hon. member for New Westminster raised the case of a natural-born Canadian of Japanese ancestry who announced that he had no faith in Canada; that his patriotism was to Japan.

Yet he could return to this country and assume the full rights of a Canadian citizen because, as the Secretary of State pointed out, there is no place to which to deport him since he was a natural-born Canadian. On the other hand, this saving section, 46, has an association with these orders in council passed last fall which put certain restrictions on people who were natural-born Canadians and naturalized Canadians. There was a further order in council passed dealing with certain Canadians, which restricted them from living in the coastal zone. That was passed in 1942. I followed the Secretary of State's argument and explanation as carefully as I could, and with what knowledge of the English language I have, it sounded like double talk to me. Along with this saving section, 46, there should certainly be such a provision as this amendment to support, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni says, the promises made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the only minister from British Columbia in the government. He promised that the Japanese would not return to the coastal zone. At the present time there is an order in council which says that, but we want to go farther than that since the provisions of this bill give full Canadiap rights to natural-born Japanese.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The amendment is not an easy one; neither is the subject itself. I am sure that if the hon. gentleman will give it the great consideration which I know he will, he will see that it refers inter alia to the three orders. I want to suggest to my very good friend, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who is one of the most diligent members in this house, that this bill is a measure dealing with nationality, citizenship and status of aliens. I would suggest to him that the amendment as offered certainly has no place in this bill. I do not know whether it is out of order or not, but I would certainly suggest to the hon. member that it is so clearly irrelevant that I would not think he would require much more persuasion to withdraw the amendment.


John Lambert Gibson: I dislike not reacting properly to the kindly words that the Secretary of State has applied to. me. It makes me feel very humble. However, with my very great lack of parliamentary experience I must say that I have been looking for quite some time for an opportunity to see what the government intended to do with regard to the Japanese on the coast. I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs is particularly concerned with how he is going to keep the promise he made that assisted him in garnering the support of his colleagues to the propo-

Canadian Citizenship
sition which he sold to the people of British Columbia, certainly to Vancouver Centre. I think this is a marvellous opportunity for the government of Canada to give tangible evidence to the people of British Columbia of their good faith in the last election. It just occurs to me that this is the only opportunity they have yet had to carry out that promise.
I know that British Columbia members have been bringing up this matter in the house for many years. The man whom I have the honour to succeed took this matter up faithfully for twenty-five years, and we can look around the house and see many hon. members from British Columbia who have been carrying on yeoman service in this regard despite, shall I say, the handicap of having to put up with the anti-Canadian resolutions of the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Angus MacInnis: They did not vote exclusion when I gave them the chance; they voted against it.


John Lambert Gibson: The people of Vancouver East are not very well informed-


Angus MacInnis: Let the hon. member tell that .to the people of Vancouver.


John Lambert Gibson: I believe this is an opportunity for the members of the house to listen to what has been told them for the past forty years by the members from British Columbia. In days gone by we did not have the C.C.F. party. It used to be unanimous out there, but it would appear to me our people have fallen into the ways of error. I would not advise this house to listen too carefully to the five members who represent the C.C.F. party here with regard to what has been going on.


William Henry Golding: Is the hon. member speaking to the point of order?


John Lambert Gibson: A point of order was raised. We have to deal with that.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, may I point out that in other sections of this bill reference is made to rights and obligations. For example, in section 27 there is a reference to the rights of the Canadian citizen other than a natural-born citizen. In section 29 there is a reference to the rights of aliens. I submit that the amendment which has been offered by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni deals with rights and is entirely in order.


James Allison Glen: May I be allowed to say a word? The amendment states:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, for a period of twenty years from the proclamation thereof, no person of Japanese ancestry, whether natural-born naturalized or Japanese alien, shall be allowed to reside in that section of British Columbia presently known as the coastal security zone.
Any amendment that is moved must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is moved. In this bill we are dealing with the question of nationality of citizenship and all the rights and privileges that pertain thereto. In this amendment we are denying to a citizen of Canada the right to reside in a certain place. It is not relevant to the bill because it introduces another matter altogther foreign to and has no bearing on the section of the bill with which we are now dealing. In my judgment it is entirely out of order to introduce a subject so irrelevant and so foreign to the very purpose of the bill. I suggest that the Chairman consider citation 344 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, volume 3, which reads:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment ;as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto. The exceptions to this rule are amendments on the question of going into supply or ways and means.
I am submitting to the Chair that this amendment is foreign to the section now before the committee and that, as a matter of fact, it contains a prohibition denying to an individual who might under the bill become a citizen of this country his rights and obligations, and that therefore it is out of order.


William Henry Golding: I had intended to quote the citation which has been quoted by the Minister of Mines and Resources. I think there is no question in the world that this amendment is clearly out of order. If such an amendment were accepted any other hon. member could rise up and move a motion or an amendment to deal with some other class in the same way, and so it could go on and on. I rule the amendment out of order.


James Sinclair: Neither the hon. member for Comox-Alberni nor myself being a lawyer, we had thought section 46 had to do with certain saving restrictions. I may not be in order now in asking this, but I waited for this section in order to do so. Perhaps the minister will give me and my colleague the assurance that
Canadian Citizenship

this bill which we are almost through will not give to these natural-born Canadian Japanese or naturalized Canadian Japanese rights which they do not have at the moment. For instance, in British Columbia they do not vote. In British Columbia at present, because of an order in council, they do not live in the coastal security zone. We should like to know if this bill does give them the right to vote in British Columbia and the right to live in the coastal zone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The amendment I have offered covers all existing acts and orders.


James Sinclair: Including that one about not living in the coastal zone? '


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said it covers all existing acts and orders.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On an earlier occasion
when I asked the minister a question with regard to the effect of the repeal of this act which was common to all the empire countries, as I understood it he said he would explain when we came to section 46. Has he that explanation to offer now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hitherto the status of
British subjects has been established by having virtually identical definitions in the naturalization acts of the different countries of the commonwealth. Each act described what persons were born to the status of British subjects and what persons could be naturalized to it, and each act did this in the same way. However, as long as this system was retained it meant that we were not able to eliminate double definitions: definition on the one hand of national status and on the other hand of the status of British subject. The result in Canada was that we fell into the serious difficulties that we now have with British subjects, Canadian nationals and Canadian citizens. Moreover, the retention of the identical definition basis imposed a severe limitation upon the capacity of individual countries of the commonwealth to establish their own citizenship as a basic consideration for purposes of their own law.
The hitherto existing approach might be called the system of "identical definition." The other possible approach is for each country of the commonwealth to establish its own citizenship definition in accordance with its own. needs, and for the other countries to recognize that definition as according the status of British subjects for purposes of their law. This new basis might be contrasted with that of "identical definition" by calling it, perhaps, the principle of "mutual recognition." The principle is seen in the present

bill. We have defined Canadian citizens, and we have said that we regard them as having the status of British subjects. We have then gone on to say that for the purposes of our law we recognize as British subjects persons who are such under the law of any other country of the commonwealth, no matter how that country may define the status. There is advantage in maintaining as high a degree of similarity in definition as is consistent with the special needs of the various countries. This we have tried to keep in mind in the present bill, and hon. members will have noticed that the basic definitions and qualifications here are not substantially different from those in the present Naturalization Act. In short, we have tried to achieve what we thought was necessary in the new situation without discarding what seemed to be of value in the old.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a very clear explanation. Can the minister say whether this principle of mutual recognition has been discussed with the other commonwealth countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, the bill was sent to the other commonwealth countries.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And were they prepared to make similar concessions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was no negative reply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All of them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 47-Coming into force.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
wonder if the minister could tell us, assuming this bill is passed by next week, when the probable date of proclamation would be. I should like to think this bill might be proclaimed by the end of May, in view of the quinquennial census which is to take place on the prairies next month. I emphasize that strongly, because the citizens out there would then be able to say, when asked what is their citizenship, "I am a Canadian." That may not be possible, because in all probability the forms are already printed, but if it should not be possible I would suggest that the bill be proclaimed on July 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may assure my hon. friend that it will be proclaimed at the earliest possible moment. We have to give notice of the establishment of the registers abroad to many people, and as soon as we can effect that item particularly we, hope to proclaim it. At
Canadian Citizenship
the moment it is difficult to say exactly when that will be, though I can assure the hon. gentleman it will be done as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Just in that connection, if I may add one word, the other day when I brought up an amendment with regard to the question that hereafter it should be unnecessary, except in the case of naturalized citizens, to refer in the census to racial origin, or even to answer the question of racial origin, the minister stated that he could give the assurance that hereafter this would not be required in the census. Does that assurance apply to the census about to be taken in the western provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course I can only say that this bill is not yet law. As soon as it becomes law the answer to one's national status will be as provided in section 3 of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, that still does not answer the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: One thing at a time.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right; one thing at a time, as the hon. member for Tem-iscouata says. The question I am asking is simply this. Will natural-born Canadians, provided that this bill is promulgated and brought into effect before the cenus takes place in the western provinces, be required to state their racial origin?


William Henry Golding: Order. The section under discussion reads as follows:
This act shall come into force upon a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.
Shall this section carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the bill be proclaimed in time for the celebration of Canadian citizenship day?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Carried.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I submit that the questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Lake Centre are connected with this section, because it deals with the date of proclamation and that has a bearing on whether or not the people of the prairie provinces will have the legal right under this bill to call themselves Canadian citizens, and whether or not that will be a good and sufficient answer as provided in section 3. I think we are entitled to a reply to that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have given the reply. Section 3 is quite clear, that if a person is
asked as to his national status, hereafter he will not have to say anything other than, "I am a Canadian citizen."


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Would the minister add to that statement, "regardless of what is on the printed census form"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The bill is clear.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule 1.
Donald Methuen Fleming: A question has been asked about the inclusion within the scope of the commonwealth of Australia of the territory of Papua and Norfolk islands. Would the minister explain that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is carried over from the old act.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are British subjects. Mr. FLEMING: Could the minister clarify the situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the schedule suggested by the Department of External Affairs, and carries out provisions in the old act. Australia would want it, too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The question was asked by some hon. members as to whether this involved the granting of citizenship privileges in certain cases to persons who might not be white, or be familiar with the English language.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does. The point arises in connection with section 28. It is to be noted that section 28 does not say that we recognize as a British subject a person bom in a country in the schedule, or a person resident in a country in the schedule. That would limit the status to a person from one of the scheduled countries. There is no such limitation. The status is recognized for anyone who gets that status under the laws of any of the scheduled countries. The United Kingdom is a scheduled country, and all colonials get the status of British subject by force of the United Kingdom law. Thus, the effect of section 28 is to recognize all British subjects, and not just a portion of them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Another point might be clarified, namely the significance of the word "Ireland". What is the relevance of that geographical expression to the nation which now calls itself Eire. I take it that the reference in this schedule applies to the whole geographical island known as Ireland, including the northern six counties and Eire.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Northern Ireland comes under the United Kingdom.
Canadian Citizenship


Donald Methuen Fleming: And Ireland includes Eire. Mr. MARTIN: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not believe in the discrimination of races. The commonwealth of Australia includes all the aborigines of the commonwealth. The Maoris of New Zealand, the Hottentots and the Zulus of South Africa are all British subjects. I am sure they will send a letter of appreciation to the hon. member for Eglinton for his fine speeches in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
On section 10-Grant of a certificate of Canadian citizenship.
William Henry Golding: There is an amendment to this section.


James Allison Glen: I move:
That section 10 be amended.
1.	By inserting a new subsection (2), as follows:
"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection one of this section, the minister may grant a certificate of Canadian citizenship to any person who is a British subject and who makes to the minister a declaration that he desires such certificate and who satisfies the minister that he possesses the qualifications prescribed by paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of subsection one of this section; provided that in any case where, in the opinion of the minister, there is doubt as to whether the applicant possesses the said qualifications, the minister before granting such a certificate may refer the declaration and the material in support thereof to the court in the judicial district in which the declarant resides, and the declaration shall thereupon'be dealt with as an application under subsection one of this section."
2.	By renumbering the present subsection (2) as subsection (3 J.
3.	By renumbering the present subsection (3) as subsection (4) and inserting after the words "subsection one" in line six thereof the words "and subsection two."
4.	By renumbering the present subsection (4) as subsection (5) and substituting for the words "for the purpose of subsection one of this section" in line five thereof the words "for the purposes of subsection one and subsection two of this section."


Donald Methuen Fleming: As one who introduced an amendment to section 10 (1), may I commend the amendment which the minister has introduced. It recognizes the principle for which I contended in my amendment, although the minister's amendment does not go as far as mine did.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
John George Diefenbaker: I move:
That the following words be added to the section as subsection 6:	"Such certificate of
citizenship shall be deemed to include a Bill of Rights as follows:

1.	Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceable assembly are assured.
2.	Habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by parliament.
3.	No one shall be required to give evidence before any tribunal or commission at any time if denied counsel or other constitutional safeguards."
Some few minutes ago the minister made reference to the fact that some hon. members were disturbed regarding the effect of this bill on outstanding orders in council. I was one of those hon. members. I now refer to it for the purpose of clarifying the situation, and not because of any sympathy with views which might be expressed to the effect that under our citizenship, such citizenship should not be equal, without regard to race, colour or creed. I make that perfectly clear, so that there may be no misunderstanding.
I have expressed my views in regard to those orders in council before, and I express them again now by saying that if citizenship is to mean anything it must mean the equality of all.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 6, 1946.