1946-05-02

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

Mr. CRUICKSHANIC:: 1.	What is the depth of the Fraser river at the C.P.R. bridge at Mission?
2.	How many piers are there in this bridge, and what is the total space taken up in the channel of the Fraser river by the piers?
3.	Since the construction of the bridge, how many yards of rocks have been dumped at the piers?
4.	What effect have these obstructions had on the channel of the river?
5.	Are the C.P.R. granted exemption from dyking or any other taxation on the Mission-Huntingdon branch line?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: '
1.	24-36 feet.
2.	(a) Twelve; (b) 136 feet.
3.	4 and 5. No information.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PROBE:: 1.	Have negotiations been undertaken by the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide regular mail and transportation service for the veterans settled under the Small Holdings feature of the Veterans Land Act (a) at Regina; (b) at Saskatoon? If so, of what nature and with whom?
Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	What steps have been taken to secure priority for purchase and installation of telephone equipment on behalf of veterans on small holdings at Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert, where the nature of the veterans' occupation makes the installation of such service necessary?


COLD STORAGE SUBSIDIES
Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	How many subsidies have been granted under the Cold Storage Act, 1907 ?
2.	To whom were the subsidies granted?
3.	For what purpose was the subsidy granted
in each case?	,
4.	What was the amount of the subsidy in each case?



UNITED NATIONS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I should like to reply to a question which was asked two days ago by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) with respect to the contributions of various nations under the UNRRA agreement. It was mentioned at the time that this information was being prepared by the Department of External Affairs. It has been prepared and it was intended to include it in a complete report on UNRRA which will be presented to the house, I hope within a few days. In the meantime I have the information which my hon. friend has asked for and it might be placed on Hansard. This is statistical information and in connection with it I would draw the attention of the house to the follawing facts.
It will be noted that Australia, Canada, the Dominican republic, Iceland, New Zealand,
the United Kingdom and the United States of America have made a second contribution to UNRRA. Canada, the Dominican republic, Iceland and the United Kingdom have completed their contributions; the United States has paid in $750,000,000 out of its second contribution and the second part of $600,000,000 is in process of authorization.
Of the invaded countries, which are only expected to contribute to the administrative expenses of UNRRA and not to the operating fund, four, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Poland and Yugoslavia, have made contributions of supplies produced in their country.
The contributions to administrative expenses were only set at the meeting of UNRRA which took place during the month of March, and therefore as of the end of that month few countries had had time to make their contributions to administrative expenses. This explains the amounts which appear as yet unpaid in the largest number of cases, particularly in the second group of countries; those which were invaded were only expected to contribute to the administrative expenses of the organization.
It may also be worth noting, as indicated in thfe last note to the tables, that the amount paid or available is over eighty per cent of the total authorized or in process of authorization for UNRRA. With the completion of the second contribution of the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand, this percentage will be raised to almost ninety-five per cent.
The statistical information follows:
Operating and Administrative Contributions of Governments Members of UNRRA Authorized or in Process, by Country as of March 31, 1946
Country Contributions-Total 		(In U.S.	Dollar Equivalents) Total .... $3,670,799,021		Paid or Available $2,973,638,423	In Process-* Due in 1946 $697,160,598
Contributions of Non-invaded	Countries (Oper-				
ating and administrative)-	-Total	3,656,465,110	2,967,328,423"	689,136,687Australia 	76,800,000"	38,400,000	38,400,000Bolivia 	108,238b	31.746	76,492Brazil 	30,195,000*	20.000.000	10,195,000Canada 	138,738,738"	138,738,738	Chile 	2,179,312b	2,179,3i2Colombi a 	2,427,312b	1.219,907	1,207,405Costa Rica	406,500"	97,718	308,782Cuba 	6,061,000"	1,235,000	4,826,000Dominican Republic ....	1,400.000"	1,400.000	Ecuador 	156.500b	-	156.500Egypt 	4,346,833b	70,000	4 276.833El Salvador	135,250"	8.750	126.500Guatemala 	15,250"'	8,750	6,500Haiti 	55,250"	48,750	6,500Honduras 	. 115.000"	58,750	56,250Iceland 	1,409,306""	1,402,806	6,500India	24.562.072"	24,042,072	520.000Iran	338,100"	338,100
Milk
Operating and Administrative Contributions of Governments Members of UNRRA Authorized or in Process, by Country as of March 31, 1946-Continued
(In U.-S. Dollar Equivalents)
Country	Total
Iraq	 231,250"
Liberia	 20,250"
Mexico	 3,692,500"
New Zealand	 16,952,000*
Nicaragua	 135,250"
Panama	 415,250"
Paraguay	,	 44,949"
Turkey	 a
Peru	 1,032,500"
Union of South Africa	 18,265,000"
United Kingdom	 624,650,000*
U.S.A	 2,700,000,000*
Uruguay	 546,000"
Venezuela	 1,030,500"
Paid or Available 17,500 18,750
1.148.000
8.476.000 128,750 142,083
18,649
646,538
4.130.000 624,650,000
2,100,000,000
505,000
684,166
In Process- Due in 1946 213,750
1.500 2,544,500 8,476,000
6.500 273,167
26,300
385,962
14,135,000
600,000.000
41.000
346,334
Contributions of Invaded Countries-Total*...	14,333,911
6,310,000	8,023,911
Belgium	 305,000
Byelorussian S.S.R	 65,000
China	 1,525,000
Czechoslovakia	 515,000'
Denmark	 5,293,161'
Ethiopia	 15,250
France	 1,300,000s
Greece	 152,500
Luxembourg	 15,250
Netherlands	   475,500
Norway	 91,500
Philippines	 15,250
Poland	 1,355,000'
Ukrainian S.S.R	 195,000
U.S.S.R	 2,790,000
Yugoslavia	 243,500'
175,000
875,666
385.000'
18,750
8.750 1,300,000s
87.500
8.750 262,500
52.500
8.750 1,225,000'
1,750.666
152,500'
130.000
65.000
650.000
130.000 5,274,411'
6.500
65,666
6.500
195.000
39.000
6.500
130.000
195.000 1,040,000
91.000
" Includes both first and second contributions.
" Council's administrative allocation for 1946 included pending government's legislative action.
*	No operating contribution authorized as of 31st March, 1946.
d Amount of contribution not determined as of 31st March, 1946.
*	Excludes payments in local currencies to defray local expenses of UNRRA missions.
' Includes value of contributed supplies.
8 Includes advance payment of $80,000.
" The amount paid or available is over 80 per cent of the total authorized or in process. With the completion of the second contribution of the U.S.A., Australia and New Zealand, this percentage will be raised to almost 95 per cent.



MILK IN QUIRT AS TO SUMMER SUBSIDY RATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Owing to representations made by the- Milk Producers' Association and the increased costs of production, would the minister not consider continuing throughout the summer months the winter rates of subsidy on milk?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The question which has just been put by the hon. member has been submitted to me, and one has also been put on my desk by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) relating to the same matter. I think I should answer both at the same time. The question put by the hon. member for Springfield reads:

Will the hon. Minister of Agriculture restore the 55 cent milk subsidy to dairy producers?
The position in regard to milk subsidies is that a subsidy is paid both in the winter and summer months. There is a subsidy on whole milk of 55 cents in winter and 35 cents in the summer months. The time at which the change is made is 12 o'clock on the night of the 30th day of April to cover the new dairy year. There has been no change made this year, so that the suggestion here that we restore the 55 cents milk subsidy is scarcely an accurate way of stating the position. The order governing the subsidies has been exactly the same for the last two years, and the new order will make it the same for the next twelve months. In other words it is just a seasonal reduction from 55 to 35 cents.
It is hardly necessary for me to say that if there are to be seasonal subsidies there is no possibility of having the same subsidy in the

Wheat
summer months as in the winter months. To ask anyone to continue the winter subsidy into the summer months would be asking something illogical if we are to base the decision on production costs
There may be some reason for saying that we should have a flat subsidy throughout the year. In that event we would have to take into consideration winter costs of production as well as summer costs and average the two to arrive at the proper figure for a subsidy for the whole twelve months. In giving consideration to this matter, which I have already said the government intends to do, it will not be a question of returning in the summer months to the winter subsidy, but it will be the question whether we should have a flat rate throughout the year and in determining that question consideration would have to be given to both winter and summer production costs to arrive at an average figure.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The minister spoke of the costs of production in the summer months as compared with the winter months, but is it not a fact that the production costs this summer to the farmer will be higher than they have been in other summers?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a question that would have to be considered in arriving at a figure. There are two different groups of producers of whole milk. One is part of the group living close to cities, and this group place emphasis on the importance of winter production. They breed their stock and conduct their whole business with the idea of supplying milk at a time when the costs are high. I understand that this group will not be satisfied with a flat rate throughout the whole year, so there has to be a discussion with both groups-those who want a higher winter rate and those who want a flat rate throughout the year. I have some doubt whether any decision would satisfy both groups.


Gordon Graydon: You could increase both rates.



TIMBER CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction, notice of which has been sent to his office. Is he aware that the timber controller has offered further inducements to the saw mills operating in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to ship lumber beyond the prairie provinces? Secondly, what reason has the timber controller to justify the further depletion-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member knows that the rules do not permit him, in asking a question on the orders of the day, to make a statement. If he wishes to put a question, it must be brief and to the point.


Joseph William Burton: I would ask the minister what justification there is for further depleting the present short supply of lumber in the prairie provinces.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon.
member to put his question on the order paper.


Joseph William Burton: Is all of my question ruled out, Mr. Speaker?


James Horace King: I have asked the hon.
member to put his question on the order paper.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I would like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction a question. Will he indicate to the house the arrangements which have been made to enable farmers and residents of towns and villages to take advantage of part 3 of the National Housing Act? The question was asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) when he was responsible for national housing. Since then the Prime Minister has tabled P.C. 1513, of April 16, vesting in the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) the responsibility for housing.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: I shall be glad to accept the question as a notice and give a reply to-morrow or Monday.



BONUS FOR SHIPMENTS OVERSEAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he has yet had an opportunity to discuss with his colleagues the question of paying to the farmers a bonus of 30 cents a bushel on wheat for immediate delivery so that it may be shipped overseas, and if so, what the decision is in this regard?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, when there is a statement to be made on the point raised by my hon. friend it will be made in this house.
Canadian Citizenship



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 30, consideration in committee of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, and naturalization and status of aliens-Mr. Martin-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
last sat it was considering amendments to section 10 moved by the hon member for Eglinton:
That section 10 (1) (c) be amended by inserting after the word "war" in line 25, the following words: *
"or is a British subject within the meaning of section 28."
Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. MARTIN:: Before proceeding, I think this might be the appropriate place-I was waiting until we finished with subsection 1-to say that I intend to introduce an amendment to provide for a new subsection 2. As the committee wall recall, in my opening statement I said that I should be glad to listen to suggestions from all sides of the house, and after listening to the debate and giving some consideration to the matter, I should like to offer an amendment to section 10 to provide that the requirement as to British subjects going before a judge and making a declaration and so on shall be dispensed with. The situation now will be that, the necessary period of residence having been complied with, a British subject will merely make an application to the Secretary of State, and if the department is satisfied as to the declaration the certificate will issue. It is felt however that in certain doubtful cases there should be the right to refer the declaration and the application to a proper officer for consideration. The situation will be, therefore, that British subject applicants shall not be subjected to the normal ceremony provided for in the bill in so far as it applies to other groups. As to the actual terms of the amendment, I will disclose them after subsection 1 has been dealt with, but I thought I should tell the committee ahead of time that that is the proposal.


Mr. GREEN:: Will it be necessary for that British subject to take the oath of allegiance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes. He will take the oath of allegiance as the governor general has done, as we all do, as all members of parliament do. But he will do it simply by signing a document. '


Howard Charles Green: There will be no appearance in court at all?


Mr. FLEMING:: The amendment to be
proposed is as to subsection 2; is that correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will be a new subsection 2. The present subsection 2 will become subsection 3.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will be an entirely new provision?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a new subsection.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister indicate whether he intends to dispense with the residence requirements in subsection 1 (c) ?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The situation will merely
be that a British subject who wants to become a citizen of Canada under the law, and who will continue at the end of one year, as now, to have the right to vote, the right to civil service employment, the right to pension, all the rights he has now, if at the end of the period he will simply write on a special form to the department of the Secretary of State, that certificate will be issued to him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But he still will not be a citizen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Any rights he has now will be continued.-


Mr. MacNICOL:: If he does not write in and ask for a certificate of citizenship, what will be his status?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Obviously if he does not write in, nobody has the opportunity of knowing of his existence.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He still would be able to have all the prerogatives-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I thank my hon. friend for asking that question. He will have the right to vote, the right to an appointment in the civil service, all the rights he enjoys now, whether he applies for it or not. That has always been and will continue to be the situation.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Will the privileges that a British subject in Canada now has be extended to members of the commonwealth who enter Canada later under the same conditions? In other words, does it just happen to those who are now in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. With regard to those who are now in Canada, with regard to all British subjects now in Canada, on the passage of this act they are automatically affected just as is the hon. member himself. They do not have to do anything.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that they must have been here for five years before they can be in that position?
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes; that is the law now.


Howard Charles Green: If they have been here only four years and eleven months they are not in the same position as we are?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. The law is the same as it has been for twenty-seven years, under a provision introduced by the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister is begging the same old question.


Mr. BRYCE:: I have been listening, but it gets more complicated. I am a layman and I do not follow this lawyer's argument. I was an immigrant thirty years ago. Had I come in after this bill was passed, would I have the same status as I have through coming here before, and if I were living here would I get Canadian citizenship papers at once, or only after five years' residence in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Take the specific case. If the hon. gentleman came in after the passage of this bill, then in one year, as a British subject, he would have the right to vote. Under this bill that right is confirmed. He would also have under this bill the right to any privilege which a British subject now enjoys.


Mr. POULIOT:: The only difference is that his passport will indicate, I presume, that he is a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: A British subject who comes here and has not been here a year would also have a passport describing him as a British subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: And therefore the only difference between the two would be the description in the passport according to their liking. One would be here for a year and he would be described as "Canadian citizen", and if less than a year, he would be described as "British subject".
Now I will ask another question of the minister. If a British subject comes here and stays here more than a year, will he be bound to accept a passport describing him as a Canadian citizen, or will he be allowed to have a passport describing him as a British subject?


Mr MARTIN:: The situation continues as ' at present.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. Therefore there is no change. I wonder why some hon. members are so bitter about it, and others so enthusiastic. Why be bitter against nihil and be enthusiastic for nihil? It is shadow-boxing. I thought there was something in it until the minister said that there was no change. It is a compilation, the same as the revised statutes, where the commissioners have not the right to change a single provision of the law. We are in a strange position. As for me, I am a Canadian citizen and at the same time I am a British subject. When I am asked who I am I say I am a Canadian, and officially I am described as a British subject; but now, when I travel, I shall have the privilege of receiving a passport describing me as a Canadian citizen. That is all. I do not think there is anything else. Because all the gentlemen who come from all over the empire-not only those of British stock, but every British subject-will be described as a British subject. That is all. I hope that hon. gentlemen opposite will not waste energy in fighting a measure which was acceptable to Sir Robert Borden, to Mr. Arthur Meighen, perhaps to Doctor Bruce, since he never objected to it when he was in the house; and Doctor Shields made no speech about it. Now I will tell the minister one thing in all candour.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Doctor Shields is away in the south.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was not informed as to his whereabouts.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was in the newspapers.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Liberal party is an imposing group in the house. The Liberal party has the majority in the house. A small turbulent minority is always complaining about what is done-and sometimes I am one of them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Most of the time.


Jean-François Pouliot: When I speak on my own behalf as a Liberal. But I am surprised that concessions should be made to appease that small and noisy crowd. And why? Why do that? Why disappoint all the supporters of the Liberal party to appease-no, not to appease but to try to appease-those who will never be appeased? It is useless. It only hurts someone's head on the rock. They are good fellows with genial dispositions, but sometimes they are bitter, and so persistent that finally concessions are made to them. Why? They build skyscrapers on pinheads and then they describe the skyline-the skyline of skyscrapers built on pinheads. Let me say this to the younger set, the younger smart set of the Progressive Conservative party: they will be astonished to know how ungrate-
Canadian Citizenship

ful a section of their own party is. I have here an editorial from the St. Catharines Standard, a Conservative paper. Some time ago I asked whether Doctor Bruce was resigning to make a hole for Mr. Meighen to fall into, and the incident is related by that great Conservative paper, which states:
More than that, his presence in the house would stir public interest in national affairs, as it hasn't been aroused since he left the arena. John Bracken is proving a wise leader and a man of courage, but every leader needs some brilliant stars in the field. Mr. Bracken has a few now and they are more than making good, but what a team Diefenbaker and Meighen would make! They would be like Ruth and Gehrig coming up with the bases full!


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was full?


Jean-François Pouliot: The bases. Now, Mr. Chairman, back benchers have the same rights as front benchers, just as the British subject has the same rights as a Canadian citizen. They do their best, they work hard, but they work hard for an ungrateful crowd. The only one who is described as a brilliant star is the hon. member for Lake Centre. He outshines all the others, and to find his equal they will have to import Arthur Meighen to the House of Commons. What a tough proposition!


John Ritchie MacNicol: The member for Lake Centre is brilliant, very brilliant.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely; I do not deny it. But the member for Davenport is equal to him, the member for Muskoka-Ontario is at least his equal, and the member for Vancouver-South is also his equal. I have great admiration for the gentlemen who compose the Conservative party, and I think this article is unfair. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard


Mr. HANSELL:: Do these gentlemen come under this section?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes; because they describe themselves as British subjects, and that is the subject matter of the clause. I was going to say, with reference to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, that he was born in this country and he has less Canadian spirit than his deskmate the hon. member for Nanaimo, who was born in England.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask my hon. friends to listen to this.


Howard Charles Green: Be fair.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will define Canadian spirit if the hon. gentleman wishes. I have the Oxford and other dictionaries. I stand

by my guns. There is the hon. member for Eglinton and there is the hon. member for Kamloops. They are brilliant young men but they do not speak for the Liberal party; they do not speak for the C.C.F. group or for the Social Credit group; they do not speak for the Bloc Populaire; they do not even speak for the Conservative party, according to what was said by the St. Catharines Standard. I regret it on their account and it will be sufficient to make them understand that, from the point of view of their party, their efforts are fruitless.
There is something else I would say about colonialism, but if what I am going to say is granted as established and proved I will not go on. A friend of mine sent me this fine book. It is a little lighter than the other because it is printed on India paper. I am quoting from Webster's New International Dictionary.
Colonial:	Of or pertaining to a colony or
colonies; specifically of or pertaining to the British colonies, especially American history, the thirteen which formed the United States of America.
It is a definition which must have been written by civil servants in Ottawa. We now come to "colony", the definition of which is very interesting. It is as follows:
A Roman colonia, which was a subject settlement of Romans (orig. of eoloni) in a newly acquired or hostile country, made originally as a means of permanent occupation.
A Greek apoikia, or a settlement, nearly always independent or self-governing, of Greeks in a foreign country.
A company of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; loosely, any distant territory dependent on a ruling power.
What is colonialism? It is:
A state or quality of, or the relationship involved in. being colonial.
A custom, idiom, idea, feature of government, or the like, characteristic of a colony.
The colonial svsrem or policy in industrial legislation or extension of territory.
There is nothing to insult anybody in saying of one gentleman that he is colonial, even if he does not realize it himself. The hon. member who spoke the night before last was much aggrieved by the fact that one may speak of colonials and non-Canadians. I want to make myself clear. It is only an observation that everyone has the right to make, that a man is not a Canadian in spirit, although he may be a very good citizen otherwise, and as to those who spend so much energy in defending the British empire, it is only natural to think that they would still be subject to it.

Canadian Citizenship
I should be interested to hear them explain their position a little better than they did on that occasion.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I must say that the hon. member who has just taken his seat is always very kind to myself and to others.
Mr. POUL-IOT: Everybody is, and the hon. member deserves it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But I do not like to hear hon. members on this side of the house described as noisy or bitter. I do not believe that any hon. member who has spoken in this debate has had any bitterness in his heart. Hon. members may have been a little loud in their expression, but I certainly spoke without bitterness. When the minister spoke the other day he was a little warm, and perhaps he had reason to be. I have no fault to find with the minister, because he is one of the men whom I admire. I recognize his ability and the success he -has made in life, which has been- an example for others to follow. At the beginning of his remarks the other day he spoke of certain hon. members as being of one of two classes. I presume he was referring to me, because I had been speaking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not referring to the hon. gentleman.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that. I know the minister is always very kind in any reference he makes to myself; but I want to dissociate myself from -either of the classes referred to by the minister as being extreme. I am only speaking for myself; others can speak for themselves. I am not one of the class of extremists, because I took the stand the other day that the five-year period was much too long to impose on a Britisher coming into this country to live. I want to address -my remarks to the minister, Mr. -Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am following the hon.
member.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I ask all
hon. members to address the Chair, so that all hon. members may hear what is being said.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was at the point of
saying that I did not want to be placed in the class of an extremist. Personally I always try to look fairly and broadly at any matter that comes before me. Speaking the other day the minister said, as reported at page 1053 of Hansard:
At one end of the scale there is the desire to reduce the qualification and procedure for nonCanadian British subjects to the minimum and to emphasize as much as possible the status of British subjects for Canadian citizens. At the
other end of the scale the position is that no privileges whatever should be given to British subjects; that they should be aliens in the sight of our law and that the status of British subjects should be eliminated with regard to Canadian citizens.
Then the minister added:
These are extreme points of view.
Because I expressed an opinion somewhat in accordance with the first point of view mentioned, I hope I am not an extremist. I am happy to see the minister shaking his head, because words do not always convey the same meaning to everybody. When the minister was speaking I felt that I was being put in with the body of extremists, and I am anything but that in anything pertaining to life.
I want a little more elucidation. I was pleased to- hear the minister say what he said to-day, because it was a concession to people coming to Canada from the British Commonwealth as immigrants, namely, that they would not have to go before a judge to swear to their British allegiance, traditions and so forth. Since that remark was made I have been wondering what position they would be in if they did not take out their papers at the expiration of five years. The minister said that they would still be able to obtain old age pensions, to run for parliament and to hold office under the crown.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Every right they have now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Therefore they would be in the same position as I am. I cannot see how I can have any opposition to that position; it is the one they occupy to-day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I have been arguing all along. The hon. gentleman has stated the case quite correctly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In every way they will be in the -position in which they are to-day? If I may refer to tlhe Minister of Mines and Resources, who spoke the- other evening, when he came here and had been in Canada one year he could vote, provided be had been in the riding for the stated time, two months-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two months.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He could run for parliament, as he did later, and could hold any office under the crown. Is that the meaning of the proposed amendment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, the amendment does not mean that. The amendment did1 n-ot need to be introduced to effect that, because that is the situation regardless of the amendment I have announced.
Canadian Citizenship

Mr. MaoNICOL:	Then what does the
amendment imply?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has approached this question very constructively, and I will explain it again. First of all this bill does not change one iota the rights which British subjects have enjoyed in this country for more than twenty-seven years. That is the first point. The amendment I have introduced will simply mean that a British subject applying for a certificate of citizenship, that is documentary proof of his status for use abroad or elsewhere, will not have to go before a court to obtain that certificate except in such cases as the department may want to refer to the courts, such doubtful cases as may arise from time to time. The hon. gentleman will appreciate that many British subjects come to this country who were not necessarily born in the old country. Many come from elsewhere, such as British Honduras and so on, and it is necessary and desirable, as my hon. friend and all hon. members will recognize, that such, cases should be gone into; but such cases are the exception.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Suppose an immigrant
from the old country, remains here for a year or two and then desires to visit the old country again, with the intention of returning to Canada. Does he have to be registered in Canada as a citizen before he can get his passport?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He would not g.et a
Canadian passport at that point. He would have a British subject passport.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And he could go back and forth?	,


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But if he wanted to go away as a Canadian citizen he would have to be registered as such, and he could not do that until the expiration of five years?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When the minister was speaking I Hoped1 he would go a step farther, because I do not see any difference between the position of a British subject as outlined in this bill and the position as it existed when the Minister of Mines and Resources came here. It remains the very same. What would be the advantage to the Minister of Mines and Resources, if he were to come here now, in taking out his Canadian papers at all?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There would be every advantage in the world. As I pointed out in my statement on second reading, and perhaps in' my reply, thousands of persons come here

from various parts of the commonwealth and remain for many years, but with no documentary proof Whatever as to their status. As an example of what I had in mind I mentioned the daughter of a missionary in China. This gentleman was himself a Canadian citizen. He had been born in Scotland and had lived in.Canada for some eight years. He was a well known clergyman in the city of Toronto, and I have no doubt is well known to the horn, member. His daughter had never lived in Canada. Under the laws of China she was a citizen of that country. Under the laws of Canada she would have been entitled to entry here like anyone else. She went to the United States to study and was taken off the train in the middle of the night with no means of proving her national status. When this bill is passed we shall be able to give her a certificate, but at present we cannot do so.
Living at the border as I do I have had not only departmental but personal experience of cases involving British subjects who lived in Canada for a long time and then went to the United States. For some reason or other they have been deported from the United States. In one case I have in mind the deportation occurred after the person had been in Canada for seventeen years. He developed a disease which made him inadmissible under the Immigration Act, and he was deported to the old country, where he had not been for something like forty-eight years. He had no documentary proof whatsoever of his status. We have business men who were born in the old country, who have come here and become part of our life, and who are then engaged to work in foreign countries. Right now in the department we have a case of a man who was born in Wales, lived in this country for about fifteen years, voted here like anyone else, and became part of the Canadian community. Under the laws of a particular South American country, because he has no documentary proof of his national status-and he has none-he is not able to stay there. One could go on giving case after case. My deputy is in front of me, and I think I can say that in our department I know of over 3,800 such cases that have occurred since 1925, In the interests of justice as well as of personal convenience it is highly desirable that these people should have documentary proof of their status, and they will now get it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I supported that principle of the bill from the time I first read it. I think it is quite right and quite in order that Canadians should have documentary proof. I was just going to say to the com-

Canadian Citizenship
mittee a moment ago that when the minister suggested his amendment I hoped he would go a step farther and not ask the British subject to be here five years before being able to get those papers. I just do not grasp why that is necessary. I remember what was said the other evening by the Minister of Mines and Resources about people with diseases and people not right in the head, and all that, but they can all be deported under the Immigration Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just as an indication of what the Minister of Mines and Resources had in mind the other evening, Hon. Mr. Calder was Minister of Immigration in the government of Sir Robert Borden in 1919. Before 1910 the period was two years. In 1910 it became three years, at the request of the provinces, who have to maintain many of these institutions in which mental cases are cared for. They requested that the period be extended from two years to three, because they could not possibly cope with the problem. Then they asked the government of Sir Robert Borden to increase the period from three to five years, the period we are maintaining now. In giving an explanation Mr. Calder said, in volume II of Hansard for 1919, at page 1872:
It is the intention to extend to five years, as is the case in the United States, the time during which undesirables who may get into the country, or who may prove to be undesirable after they have entered, may be deported. Heretofore the period has been only three years, but I am sure the house will agree that the extension is proper. We are going to adopt that five-year period here, not because they have it in the United States, but simply because we think it is necessary that there should be a longer period than three years in which to ascertain whether or not many of these people who get into the country are desirable.
That is the only reason we are continuing it. We are not doing anything that has not being done previously; we are simply continuing that principle. I would only point out, as the Minister of Mines and Resources ipointed out so ably the other evening, that many individuals come here with diseases that are not ascertained at the time, and which medical people say cannot be ascertained. We feel that these people who have spent most of their lives elsewhere should not be saddled on our provincial institutions simply because they have been here for two, three or four years. That is the only reason for the period of five years. I can only repeat that it does not interfere with the privileges they have enjoyed up to now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not want to worry the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are not worrying me.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am heartily in accord with the provision which I believe is now in the Immigration Act, that anyone coming into this country can be deported' within five years if he develops a disease which if it had been observable when he made application to come here would have prevented his coming in. But I just do not grasp why this provision should be in a citizenship bill. At the time of Sir. Robert Borden there was no such thing as a citizenship certificate. I am in accord with the necessity of having a citizenship paper, but I keep asking myself why the period of five years should be made applicable to Britishers by the citizenship bill. That provision is still in the Immigration Act, and I imagine it will remain there. I do not see why a man who develops a disease after five years which is attributable to some condition which existed before he came here, should have indefinite protection. As the minister has stated so well, things like this have cast a great burden upon the country. People have been admitted who should never have been admitted.
As the section is at present, as far as the five year period is concerned the Britisher is in the same position as a non-Britisher. Otherwise he is in a somewhat better position in that he does not have to go before a judge. To all intents and purposes he is a citizen, but he is not a registered citizen. I can see this section passing immediately if the period be reduced. This question of deportation is covered 'by the Immigration Act; I cannot understand why it is in the citizenship bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will explain why. We regard, and I am sure the hon. member does likewise, evidence of citizenship as being a very important matter. I think it would be the most un-British tiling in the world, and I am saying that with all sincerity, to say to a person, "We will give you a certificate of citizenship, but if you develop tuberculosis we are going to send you back." That is the sort of thing certain dictators have done. Once a man is given citizenship it seems to me that he should be deported only for disloyalty to the crown, fraud and other similar reasons. Once you have given a man evidence of citizenship, once you have given him a certificate which he can show to the whole world, I do not think you should be in position to deport him because of one of those things. It has been suggested that no change should be made in the Immigration Act. Under that act the causes for deportation include becoming a public charge. I know my hon. friend
Canadian Citizenship

would be the last in the world to suggest that we should say to a British subject, "Here is a certificate of citizenship, but if you do any one of the things provided for by the Immigration Act you can be deported in five years." To use his own words, I think that would be monstrous; it would be contrary to the whole spirit of what we call British institutions. I know that he for one would not want to subscribe to that.
There is another reason which I mentioned at the outset. Many British subjects come to this country or to Australia from outside. I am not saying that these people are not as good, because I do not believe in the superiority of races, but many who come to this country as British subjects were not born in the commonwealth. They go to England, become citizens of the United Kingdom, and then come to us later on as British subjects. Are we going to create a situation that would not only make deportation provocative but would at the same time render a man stateless? That is one of the things we have to try to avoid. There is nothing worse than a stateless individual. Unfortunately there are many of them in the world and a lot of them in this country. We hope we can rectify that.
When we come to section 21 I propose to suggest an amendment which I think will prove *consistent with what I have just said. This would provide that the revocation of certificates of citizenship would be based on the strictest grounds. This should apply to all people. I have listened to this debate and I should like to say that I do not think that people who come from outside, British subjects, regard themselves as members of a superior race.
What we should try to do is to have all potential Canadian citizens on the same plane. Let them feel that if they are good enough for citizenship in this great country they should be prepared to regard themselves as being on the same level. I think that is the only way we can build up the country. I mentioned being present the other day at a ceremony in Toronto. The hon. gentleman was kind enough to commend me publicly for having gone to it. It was a ceremony at which thirty-five individuals became Canadian citizens, and I should like to give hon. members a picture of what happened. Two of them who took part in the ceremony are among the outstanding men in the medical world. One was born in Czechoslovakia. He is a graduate of. Oxford university, of the university of Czechoslovakia and of Columbia university. He is one of the outstanding medical men of this country. When he became a citizen of Canada he took 
his place alongside thirty-four other people who also became Canadian citizens. The ceremony did not take place in a courtroom-the ceremonies we propose to hold will not take place in courtrooms-but rather in a room which was conducive to giving the applicants an impression of the kind of responsibilities and opportunities they are acquiring. That man was an eminent scientist, one of the world's eminent people who had come to this country.	\


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is the kind we want to come here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I do not think there was anything belittling in that man taking his place with the others. It was an impressive thing. They were all doing the same thing, they were all taking part in the same ceremony. I should think that is preferable to encouraging the suggestion that there should be discrimination between one national group and another. That is the purpose we had behind this measure. I know when it becomes law and we are given a chance to administer it, it will do a great deal to make all potential citizens happier and perhaps more responsive to and more impressed by the opportunities and responsibilities to be found in this country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask two more
questions?
The CHAIRMAiN:	May I remind the
committee that we are now considering an amendment to section 10, subsection (c). It occurred to me that it might be well to try to dispose of that amendment before continuing a general discussion on the whole section.


Mr. HACKETT:: I intended to ask the
minister-


William Ross Macdonald: It might expedite the
proceedings of the committee if we could dispose of the amendment before continuing a general discussion on the whole section.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have two questions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that the point you have just raised, Mr. Chairman, is a point of order. I have the strongest possible exception to the suggestion that this amendment ought to be disposed of without discussion. The essence of the amendment is to avoid the position created by the section as it now stands, which to all intents and purposes puts the British subject from another part of the commonwealth in precisely the same position as an alien coming here and applying for citizenship. This discussion is
Canadian Citizenship
germane to the amendment, and I strongly urge that there should be no suggestion about disposing of the amendment in the light of the current discussion.


William Ross Macdonald: I think the hon. member for Eglinton misunderstood me. I intended to suggest that the speeches should be with respect to the amendment in order that the amendment may be disposed of, not that we should dispose of the amendment at this minute. I was suggesting that all speeches be directed to the amendment rather than generally to the section.


Mr. CHURCH:: I am very much surprised at the minister, who comes from a city in Ontario, bringing in a bill like this, with this most mischievous section 10(1). I believe it will cause more widespread disunity than anything else I know of, not only amongst the British citizens referred to in 10(1) (a) but amongst other immigrants coming here from other countries. I doubt whether the minister who has talked so much about the bill understands it himself. The minister and his officials, seem to think they should be something like Mr. Byrnes in Washington, with a large department, spending money like water. And on what? On citizenship. I believe that under the British North America Act part of this bill is ultra vires, because it concerns provincial matters which cannot be changed without the consent of the province.
On the second reading of the bill I referred to a legal opinion which had been given by the privy council, under which 10(1) (a) would be declared ultra vires. It was made clear in the case of AVilliams v. Howarth that there is only one king ruling over the empire and not a separate king for each dominion, which this bill sets up. That case was referred to by Lord Bennett in the House of Lords, where he stated that nothing in the Statute of Westminster alters the law made clear in the case of Williams v. Howarth that there is only one king ruling over the empire. This bill attempts to alter the law regarding that and the status of a British subject. A British subject is one by origin, or by domicile, or by later choice. This bill alters the whole principle of British citizenship, and it is brought down just on the eve of an election- for don't forget, we are going to have an election next July over the dominion-provincial conference-as to who is right on it. Coming events cast their shadows before.
This bill should have gone to a committee. The flag question was sent to the committee; why was not this bill sent to a committee? As I said on the second reading of the bill, I believe section 10(1) (a) would be declared 63260-71
ultra vires of this parliament. This is no time to bring in such a bill. It is putting the cart before the horse. We have no mandate for passing such a bill. We should first decide on our immigration policy. When did the minister get a mandate from his constituency to bring in this bill? Who is asking for it? Are the soldiers who fought for the mother country asking for it? No. This bill is much misunderstood, it is so complex and involved. If passed it will throw a load of work on the county court judge, and ten times the number of judges will have to be appointed to deal with nothing else but citizenship.
Who is worrying about citizenship? One newspaper said it was the Orange order. I belong to that order myself, and our principles are: equal rights to all and special privileges to none. Shades of Clarke Wallace and McCarthy and John Ross Robertson and other stalwarts occupying the Conservative benches in the olden days-to think of an Ontario minister bringing in a bill like this! The people are beginning to wake up to the meaning of this bill. The largest number of those in Ontario came from Great Britain. Many of them fought and died in the defence of our country. We have also a large number of fine citizens who have come here under the law permitting aliens to enter Canada.
I would like to see this bill given the six months' hoist. Let it wait until next year. It is an insult to the British soldiers. I want to give the government credit for having done well in granting a loan to Britain. That was most admirable and they have done a good deal of good work in that connection. I want to be fair and say that. But this bill is not timely. We are now in the eighth week of the session and six weeks have been spent on secondary matters-the flag, change of status, isolationism. One hon. gentleman has told the house that those who come here from the British isles are aliens, but I can tell you this, that but for our soldiers standing by the side of the mother country at Dunkirk not only the maritime provinces but Quebec and Ontario would have been overrun by the Germans. Section 10(1) (a) is an insult to the soldiers who served overseas. I am beginning to get a little doubtful of some of our Conservative friends when I hear them talking status, autonomy, isolationism and the change of anthem and flag. One or two newspapers are referring to the Orange order, of which Sir John A. Macdonald was a member. All we see of the Orange order now on parliament hill is around the east block where compartments are marked off on the pavements with orange

Canadian Citizenship

paint, "Reserved-No. 1," "Reserved-No. 2," "Reserved-No. 3", indicating parking areas for east block officials.
I have seen what some of the British newspapers are saying about section 10(1) (a). It is an insult to the British people coming to this country. This particular section is of no more value than some of the other clauses. Section 10(1) encircles, so to speak, every other section in the bill. It is a sort of omnibus section. Ih my opinion it is a gesture to certain influences, to the foreign-born against the British-born. It is, of course, a political bill and is designed as such. In my opinion it is also a most mischievous bill, and has caused a lot of discussion in the old land. It puts us as Canadians in much the same position as when, in 1887, in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's day, we were first in the diamond jubilee procession and the last dominion to send a contingent to the South African war. That movement was opposed on all sorts of grounds. It was said to be against the British North America Act, against the constitution, perhaps against the Immigration Act. But these arguments did not appeal to the loyal people of this country, who, fortunately, are not all in one political party. They decided this particular issue once and for all, as Sir John Macdonald expressed it years ago.
I may tell the government that I felt some annoyance, although my feeling was more of soitow than of anger, against the minister for inserting in his bill a section like this one. Consider the effect of this and other sections referred to by the hon. member for Marquette, the Minister of Mines and Resources, who is responsible for immigration. It is an impossible bill. It is a political bill, an election bill.
In the period between the two great wars, according to a return presented to the house nearly a million of our citizens had to leave Canada and go to the United States to get employment in a new country-among them many soldiers who fought for us at the hazard of their lives.
_ The more I consider this bill the less I am in favour of it. Here is the return indicating the public interest in this legislation. Nobody is asking for it. I have looked through this small return and I can find no evidence that any religious denomination is in favour of it. Why is such a bill brought forward, to the exclusion of measures relating to fuel and housing and other matters of primary importance? Who is concerning himself about citizenship? The- subject is largely a provincial one, although the federal power has jurisdiction over naturalization and immigration laws.

This bill should go to a committee, as the flag bill did. We hear all about citizenship on & public holiday, but hon. members seem to be afraid of it. Civic holiday is set aside in nearly all the provinces to discuss citizenship and the elements which make a good citizen.
I am very much surprised at the principle of the bill. It will do untold harm. Section 10 is an illustration of putting the cart before the horse. The first thing to do before having any citizenship bill is to decide by an immigration policy who shall come to the country now that the war is over. The hon. member for Vancouver-iBurrard, in an admirable speech the other day, alluded to opinions on all sides of the house as to what constitutes a good Canadian. As regards hon. members, they are all good Canadians or they would not be elected to the House of Commons.
I say to the government that .this bill should be withdrawn, or it should stand over for a year. The government has no mandate to pass one section of the bill. It was not discussed in the last election, either in my constituency or in any other so far as I know. Why should it be sprung on the house at the present time, when so many pressing questions are before us?
Finally, it seems .to me that this matter is one for the dominion-provincial conference. It deals with perhaps the most important matter which can come before them, namely ^immigration. What is the sort of citizenship they want? Whom do they want in this country?
This bill will do untold harm in the old country. I have talked with hundreds of soldiers returning from the present war, and that is their opinion. People from the old land will go as immigrants to Australia, or to New Zealand, to countries where they will be welcomed. We are told what South Africa is doing. But what have we to do with South Africa? The South African union will not even give the black man a vote, and what they want is a republic; they are for isolation and separation. Are we to imitate a dominion like that?
Under the law, once a British subject always a British subject, but the whole policy under international law affecting domicile will have to be rewritten in the light of this bill. The law regarding domicile of origin, domicile of choice and the rest, all the law books and all the case law will have to be reviewed and revised. This measure is another of the offspring of that mischievous empire-wrecking act known as the statute of Westminster. In New Zealand and Australia they recognized the Statute of Westminster only in part; they were exempted from

Canadian Citizenship
several clauses of it. They would not assent to the measure, and if they have signed it, they have done so only recently.
What I have to say about this clause is generally applicable to all other sections of the bill. If a six months' hoist is proposed I will vote for it. I certainly will not agree that the opposition throw out a lifeline to the government all the time. It is the duty of the opposition to give constructive criticism, but I should be the last to throw out any more lifelines to the present government on a policy of isolationism, of separatism, and the rest. I can tell you, nobody is worrying about this sort of legislation at the present time. It is not status, sovereignty, or autonomy that people are interested in. The soldiers are looking for jobs, houses and fuel; yet here we are, spending days and days on this particular bill. I protest against it. I believe the whole bill should go to a committee and be given the six months' hoist, if it does go to those in another place. It would give them a chance to stage a comeback. While, ordinarily they do very little work, they have here a chance to stage a come-back by throwing three or four bills of this kind out the window and the front door.


Mr. BROWN:: I should like to add another note to this chorus, and I am sure it will not cause any discord. Section 10, subsection 1 (f) requires the court to satisfy itself of the knowledge of applicants of the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship. This can be read in conjunction with sections 37 and 38, where it is provided that certain facilities' are to be set up to instruct applicants in the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship. In the United States provision is made for such ceremonies and instruction. I should like to pay tribute to His Honour A. J. Gordon, of the city of Windsor, who for some time has been making provision for such ceremonies on the admission to citizenship of persons making application for it. In addition to this, being from Windsor, where probably we are a little more advanced than some other . parts, because Windsor is in the constituency of Essex West-


John Ritchie MacNicol: A large part of it is in Essex East.


Donald Ferguson Brown: No, I am sorry: Essex West is not in Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Essex East is the governing factor.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Essex East, I quite agree is the- governing factor-in Essex East. But to get back to my theme. We have there 63260-71J
classes of instruction, and I should like to pay a tribute to Mrs. Lois E. Hamilton, who is a member of Imperial Order of Daughters of the Empire. She has compiled a book which is used in giving instruction. In the United States there is provision for instruction, and a textbook is provided. One book I have in my hand gives in very simple story and outline certain phases of government. Mrs. Hamilton has compiled a book known as the Citizenship Textbook.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A very good one, too.


Donald Ferguson Brown: It was compiled for the Imperial Order of Daughters of the Empire, and in that book, by picture, by map, by story, by question and answer, given in a readable, simple and understandable way, she has conveyed to her readers the fundamentals of our citizenship. By profession Mrs. Hamilton is a nurse, but as a public service she has compiled this book. They hold classes for applicants for citizenship. These classes convene once a week for two hours and are under the supervision of accredited public school teachers. At present there are about thirty-five in each class.
There is one part of that textbook which I think would be applicable not only to those who are applying for naturalization and Canadian citizenship but to those who now say they have citizenship, those who were born in this country or who have been naturalized. May I give to the house and to the people of Canada a short resume of what is set forth in that book. Let me quote from page 11:
A citizen in a democracy has both duties and responsibilities. He must not sit down quietly and allow the affairs of state to go on without feeling that he has a duty to perform.
The first duty of a citizen is to try to understand as well as he can our system of government, and to keep himself informed as to all the important acts of those who are in authority. Just as an engineer must know and understand the machinery under his control, so a Canadian, to be a good citizen, must know and understand the government under which he lives. Citizenship is not a condition into which a person is born, but is like a profession or a trade which must be learned.
Secondly, fo be a good Canadian citizen, you must not only be obedient to the laws of the country, but must actively participate in the governing of the country by voting intelligently and wisely,-
Probably Liberally.
-and by knowing and appreciating the work and methods of government. Laws affect each and every individual, but each and every individual has a share in choosing what laws shall be made, and only by voting intelligently and wisely can the individual meet the heavy responsibilities which democratic government imposes on him.
A third duty incumbent on you as a citizen is to be ready to assist, as far as you are able, all good causes. Never oppose them by speaking ill
Canadian Citizenship

of them, or by making them objects of ridicule. One of these causes is the thorough education of all citizens. It is the common every-day people that make the governments, good or bad. The most important of all causes, which you should support, is that of religion. A nation that scoffs at religion is in grave peril. Nothing can be found to take its place in the life of the people.
The last duty of a citizen is to endeavour to lessen the cruelty of our civilization. It would be well, if each day, everyone would think of the cruel things they have seen done, or that they themselves have done and then try to discover how much of the suffering thus caused might have been prevented. If such a course were followed, there is no doubt, we should soon have a bright and happy world.
I commend, that not only to those who are attending classes to be instructed in citizenship, but to the members of this house and to the people of Canada generally.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Chairman, may I thank the two hon. members who have applauded. I intervene in this debate for the first time to occupy only five or six minutes. Perhaps I should make an exception to that, because I very rudely interrupted the minister the other night, and therefore I should make allowance for that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman's interruption was not rude.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you. I have been trying to find out just what all this is about, and if I interpret the minister's remarks correctly, leaving aside for the moment the use of the words "Canadian citizen", it is nothing more than the formalizing of an existing state of law which we have had for twenty^seven years. That is my interpretation of what he has said, and may I say that my view coincides with his in that regard.
The fact, though, that something has been in existence fo.r twenty-seven years does not make it sacrosanct or anything like that, because evolution is change, and laws change. Laws occasionally should be changed. Somebody tells me that governments, too, change.
I am not very good at wishful thinking, but perhaps there is something in that.
I turn to the one thing which I think seems to have been dividing us, and it is this question of the treatment of British subjects from other places in the British commonwealth of nations. Looking at that, I am quite unable to see the validity of the objection to the suggestion we make. Remember, that is mot said critically, and I am not going to be that way. I am hoping to make a suggestion which may be of some value.
It is a fact of law and of moral conduct *that we treat our partners rather better than *we treat persons who have not that relation-
IMr. Brown.]
ship with us. The basis of the whole law of partnership is mutual trust, and I am not suggesting that as among these nations it would go so far as to permit an individual to do something which would be a contract for the whole. But we have all been proud of this partnership. We have talked about it; we have talked about the invisible bonds, and so on, that have kept us together; and it does seem to me that in that veiy idea of partnership, which we have all of us acclaimed, there is reason for somewhat different treatment of persons coming to our shores from other parts of the commonwealth from the treatment we accord those who are aliens to bogin with.
I am pleased to congratulate the minister on what he granted at the opening of the discussion to-day, and it is in that same spirit that I congratulate the hon. member for Eglinton on his speech the other day, which I have just read, in which he conceded, as he should have done, that after a period of five years' deportation might take place. In answering the hon. member for Davenport a moment ago the minister thought it was not inconceivable, and copying my hon. friend's large word, that it might be interpreted as monstrous. I tried to examine that. What does it mean? It simply means that a person gets a certificate of citizenship, which he had not in a formal document but which he had in fact in times gone by, because after a year's residence here a British subject voted and was entitled to appointment to the civil service. In fact I can think of no right whatever he did not have that I have, for example, and I was born in this country. I may be wrong about that, but I do not think so. I am quite prepared to join the club which the hon. member for Broadview spanked a few moments ago. I am quite prepared to join the club of spankees. I thoroughly believe that that as men of an earlier day said civis Romanus sum, so civis Canadensis mm is worth saying and worth believing. If ever a bill should come before this House of Commons with the unanimous consent of its members, it is this one. When we in this chamber presume to make these words mean something, presume to give people certificates so that they can say: "This is what I am in this world," we should do all we can, even m.ore than we think we can, to try to find unanimity. If we cannot find unity in this matter how can we expect persons not of this gathering to find unity -when we preach it to them? I say this to the minister, in the best spirit I know: Maintain your provisions in the Immigration Adt. They are sound.
Canadian Citizenship
It is obvious that no inquiring body, no police force, if you like, can check up and find in one year the necessary history of all those who have been criminals or have criminal tendencies. It may well be that at the ports Pur doctors miss some illnesses and diseases, and certainly time is required to make inquiries. What [DOT] I am asking from the minister, in the spirit of compromise, is that, to use his own words, we continue what we have always had with the people from the different parts of the commonwealth; to permit them to formalize themselves with us as Canadian citizens at the end of one year.
I cannot understand why the suggestion is opposed. It is taking nothing from anybody, not a single thing. I am one of those who believe in ho hyphens. Surely the association with countries speaking the same language, with similar institutions and so forth, would permit the minister and the government, and I hope all members of this house to say: "Yes, this we will do." Then indeed we can go out and say that we have done something for this country. Then indeed we can have pride in our citizenship. We can say: "Here is my certificate; I am a Canadian citizen."


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not so far taken any part in this discussion, and I do not think I should do so now were it not that I should like to make a similar appeal to that which has just been made by the hon. member for Calgary West.
First of all I should like to say a word in reply to one suggestion made by the hon. member for Broadview, to the effect that we have no mandate to be discussing this question at the present time. At the beginning of last session, the first session following the last election, I made it plain that so far as I was concerned I had a mandate on this question. One who has a majority so small as mine can probably speak in terms of a mandate with much greater authority than one who has a larger majority. I am quite sure there were more than fourteen people in my constituency who voted for me on the understanding that I believed that a person born in Canada, or one who had lived in Canada for a certain period of time and had been naturalized, should be in a position to call himself a Canadian citizen and have legal authority for so doing. Therefore, on that point I think it will be agreed that I at least have a mandate to come before this committee and say that a bill of this kind ought to be passed.
I recall that when I made that statement on the address in reply to the speech from the throne at the last session, the remark was
more loudly applauded from all sides of the house than any other remark I have made in this house during the last two sessions.
The statement was made that when a person goes into court or anywhere else and is asked what country he is a citizen of, or what his nationality is, he ought to be in a position to say that he is a Canadian, and should not be compelled to go any farther in stating his nationality. That, I say, was applauded on all sides of the house; therefore I think we can all assume that we have a mandate to discuss this question at this particular time and to express our views on a bill of this kind. To me it is just as important as some of the other matters which were referred1 to by the hon. member for Broadview.
May I now come back to the point I had in mind, that of British citizenship or British subject. I have found it rather difficult to determine in my own mind-and I have not yet been convinced that it is correct-that any British subject had to be in this country a year before he became a Canadian. My understanding is a British subject has always been a Canadian on arrival in this country. He became a Canadian on the day he arrived. For that reason I cannot see any difference in principle between the amendment which says that a man should remain here a year, and the bill itself which says that a man should remain here for five years before he obtains a certificate. The principle is the same in both cases. It is simply a matter of time, and it does not affect his rights as a Canadian citizen. In order to emphasize that point may I read paragraph (c) of section 29 of the elections act:
29. Save as in this act otherwise provided, every person, male or female, shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member, who. not being an Indian ordinarily resident on an Indian reservation,
(c) has ordinarily resided in Canada for at least twelve months and in the electoral district wherein such person seeks to vote for at least two months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
That applies to me as a native born Canadian just as much as it applies to a British subject born in Britain. If I go out of this country and remain away for two years or five years and then, come back, I must reside in the constituency for the twelve months immediately preceding the election before I can vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Two months.


James Garfield Gardiner: In Canada for twelve months and in the constituency for the two months immediately preceding the election.
Canadian Citizenship

That is, I must reside in this country, whether in that constituency or somewhere else, for twelve months, and in the constituency for two months before I can vote. In other words when I, a native-born Canadian, return I am in exactly the same position as the British subject coming here for the first time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If the minister will permit a question, I noticed that all the lawyers here agreed with him, but I do not. I think, and in fact I am sure, that you can go away for a year or two years, but if that absence is temporary your domicile remains right where it was, and you do not need to spend a year in Canada after you come back in order to vote in an election. Otherwise how would any of our students at universities be able to vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us take the case of a man who is known by everyone in this house. I refer to Mr. Weston, who was a Canadian-born British subject and who went to Britain where he ran for the British House of Commons.


John Thomas Hackett: And he became domiciled there.


James Garfield Gardiner: He became a member of the British House of Commons, and then came back to this country. I take it he must live here for twelve months before he can vote in an election.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Quite right, because he changed his domicile.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am assuming I get a job and go to Britain where I intend to stay, but that after five years I do not like it and come back to this country. I have to live here for a year before I can vote, and the British subject is in exactly the same position. In other words, as soon as a man comes here from another part of the British empire and settles in this country he has all the rights I have as a Canadian; he has to simply live out his domicile in a certain area in order to attain certain rights, just as I would have to do. If I transfer my residence from the province of Saskatchewan to the province of Ontario I must live here for a certain length of time before I can assume the ordinary rights of citizenship in this province, and the same thing is true throughout the empire. So I repeat that in principle if we say in this bill that a man must be here for twelve months we are doing the same as if we say that he must be here for five years before he can get a certificate of citizenship, and it is simply a matter of time. In the one case you do not get your

certificate for five years, and in the other case you do not get it for one year. But there is no difference within the five years as to what you can do as a citizen.
Having said that, may I say that I would have been inclined to agree with some of the arguments put forth, particularly by the hon. member for Vancouver South, in regard to the section as it was originally drafted, in connection with the provision that a British subject must go before a court in order to obtain his certificate. To my mind that would have been changing the principle that has applied in the past to British subjects coming to this country. But since the minister has indicated his willingness and his desire to bring in an amendment eliminating that procedure, it seems to me the only thing now involved in the question under discussion is the point raised by the amendment in regard to the granting of a certificate at the end of one year, as opposed to the five-year provision contained in the bill itself. On that question I think the point raised the other evening by the Minister of Mines and Resources, in his capacity as administrator of the Immigration Act, is well taken, namely that the five-year period is necessary in order to determine certain matters in relation to sending people out of this country I do not like to use the term "deportation" in connection with British subjects, any more than I would care to use it in connection with a person who is sent from one province to another. If I go from the province of Saskatchewan to the province of Ontario, and within a certain period of time become a public charge or have to be sent to a provincial institution, I am liable to be sent back to the province of Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact, even within a province we make arrangements to send people back to their original municipalities when they become public charges. So I do not see that it affects a man's citizenship as a British subject if he is required to go back to Britain, or to Australia, because when he came here he had certain shortcomings or certain physical deficiencies which made it necessary for him to be looked after by the state in which he is or from which he came.
As I understand the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Calgary West, they have no objection to the five-year term being applied in such cases. If I read and interpret the bill properly it simply means now, that a British subject is not required to go before a court in order to establish his right to a certificate, that he is given an absolute right to a certificate if he applies for it at the end of five years, and

Canadian Citizenship
that this section, simply places a definite limitation on the time within which he can be sent back to Great Britain or Australia or where-ever he may have come from. After he has come here he has only to prove that he has been here for five years; then he gets his certificate, and any attempt to deport him or send him out of the country after that time is met by the fact that he has established by certificate his position as a Canadian, and that therefore no one has any right to send him out of the country.
With the amendment that has been moved this afternoon I think we can all get together. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary West that there will be no measure before this house in connection with which it would be more important that we should have unanimity than this measure. For a long time in Canada we have had discussions with regard to citizenship. Those discussions have caused divisions among us. If we could put through this house in a manner satisfactory to all a bill dealing with matters that are of importance to us, it would be to the benefit of this country and would greatly improve our postion in future. With so little difference between us, as to whether a man should wait until the end of the five-year period before it would be impossible for him to be sent back to the country from which he came for treatment or because of anything he had done before coming here, I should think we might agree and have this bill go through unanimously. I do not think there is enough difference to warrant pressing the amendment. I would hope that in the light of the amendment which it has been suggested the Secretary of State will move to follow the passage of this section it might be possible to withdraw the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton.
There has been a helpful discussion of the whole- issue, and if it is desired to discuss it farther it might be discussed from different points of view, but I think it would be wise in the interests of all concerned that the amendment to this section should not be voted upon. After having had a discussion and after having had the amendment which has been proposed and which really takes the substance out of any criticism there was before, I think we could accept the section unanimously and go on to the next.


Ernest George Hansell: I was pleased to hear the minister make the announcement that he was going to propose an amendment. It has not been presented to us yet and we do not know the wording.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understood the amendment was read by the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not read the amendment; I stated what was in it.


Ernest George Hansell: I was pleased with the minister's explanation because it overcomes any objections that I have. I am wondering if it would not be well, now that we are talking about procedure, if we let the present section stand so that we can go forward with the bill and have the minister's amendment. We could then come back to the section and perhaps there would not be any trouble in disposing of it then. I am making that suggestion.
I am quite satisfied with the minister's explanation. As the section would have stood
1	pictured British people coming into this country and having the embarrassment of having to go before courts the same as those who are becoming naturalized. I can think of cases where that would involve considerable embarrassment. One particular case is that of a family who came to this country many years ago and who in turn raised a family here. The mother and father went back to England just after the first great war. The father died and the mother expects to return. I can see considerable embarrassment to that lady when she returns to Canada to be with her family if she has to go before a court of law in order to be declared a Canadian citizen. According to the minister's explanation, that would not be necessary. I believe that the government should reserve, the right, if upon application certain documentary evidence is not satisfactory, of conducting a further investigation, even to the point of having the party appear before a judge. I make the suggestion that it might speed up things a little if we allowed the section to stand until the minister could present his amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Although it is not strictly in accordance with the rules, I think I had better read the amendment to the committee so' that we can have it before us. We have had a lot of discussion and I do not think a postponement of the section would help greatly. I am . suggesting that section 10 be amended, first, by inserting a new subsection
2	which would read as follows-


John Thomas Hackett: Does that replace the subsection 2 that is in already?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The present subsection 2 would become subsection 3. The new subsection I am introducing would take the place of subsection 2.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: I think we should deal with the amendment that is before the committee. The minister's amendment is really a later amendment.
Canadian Citizenship


Gordon Graydon: He is not moving it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not strictly in accordance with the rules and that is why I did not read it earlier. It might facilitate the discussion and the passage of the section if I gave the dietaife of the new subsection. I am in part following the constructive suggestion of the hon. member for Macleod. It is as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection one of this section, the minister may grant a certificate of Canadian citizenship to any person who is not a Canadian citizen but 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; 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 certificate may refer the declaration and the material in support thereof to the court in the judicial district in which the declarant resides,_ and it shall thereupon be dealt with as an application under subsection one of this section.
I think that meets the .point to which my hon. friend referred.
M.r. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Omtario): I rise to make a brief comment on the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture, but in particular to reecho what was said by the hon, member for Calgary West, and indeed also by the Minister of Agriculture. This bill at its inception had every chance of being carried unanimously and our whole purpose has been to try to eradicate differences in order that there may be a common feeling of unanimity. That is most desirable.
First of all, I should like to comment upon one remark made by the Minister of Agriculture who said that it was just a matter of time. Time is an important element, and I might tell a story that I heard the other day about a professor of geology who was asked to make a speech before the inmates of a penitentiary_ I believe at Stony Mountain, for their edification. He dealt with his own profession and described the geological formation of the Churchill river and how it had changed through the years. He said that these changes had taken some hundreds of years, but that in the contemplation of geologists a thousand years were really no more than one day. A vote of thanks was moved by one of the convicts who said that he was certainly glad that the judge who sentenced him was not a geologist who would think of a thousand years as being just one day.
I submit to the Minister of Agriculture that time is important in this matter. However, the thing I really rose to say was not that at
[The Acting Chairman.]
all. The hon. member for Calgary West has expressed my views so well that I want merely to underline what he said. There is one point I should like to add and I believe this is an important point.
The Minister of Agriculture wisely and eloquently emphasized his belief in the need for unanimity. I think he felt, as we so often feel, that if we are to have unanimity other people will have to change their views. I am going to suggest that that is not true in this case. The hon. member for Eglinton has agreed with the provisions of the Immigration Act and we raise no question as to deportation. Besides, there is another section in this bill which also contemplates deportation.
Therefore, as I see it, the position is simply this: However much hon. gentlemen opposite, or some of them, may disagree with us in attaching importance to this, I think they realize that we are sincere. If that is so, then I put this to them, and again I am echoing what the hon. member for Calgary West has said, does this derogate in any way, however small, from the citizenship of any one who is going to be affected by the terms of the bill? If it does not, as I think it does not, then I suggest that here is a case where, by generosity or cooperation or what you will, people who have different views can accept the' view which we sincerely believe to be of some importance.
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North)1:	I
should like to say a word as one of those people about whom some of my hon. friends to my right are perturbed. I never felt that it was any hardship at all for me to wait for five years before I could be a Canadian, even though I could not then call myself a Canadian citizen. I came to this country to get a better chance than that the old world offered me. I do not see why we should not have to serve an apprenticeship in this country to show ourselves qualified and fit to become Canadians, a designation which I think stands very high in this world. I can see no reason at all why immigrants to Canada, no matter where they come from, should not all be treated on the same basis. I do not see why a person bom in Scotland, the Ukraine, Germany or France should be put on a different level so far as citizenship is concerned'. A knowledge and an appreciation of democracy are not confined to the people of the United Kingdom. We know that during the war certain people over there had such a poor concept of democracy that they were hanged by the neck as an object lesson to others. Democracy is not the prerogative of any one
Canadian Citizenship
group or nation, and I think that those who come to this country should be treated on exactly the same basis without any distinction or differentiation being made between them.
The other day I took exception to some remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops. Speaking of the Japanese on Tuesday in this debate he said something which I admired very much. It is on page 1082 of Hansard:
If, then, they stay in the country, my position would be that they must be given full rights to citizenship, much as I may disagree with the original decision to allow them to remain in the country.
That was an honest and forthright statement, especially from one who holds the views he does. But he mentioned something else, on which I should like a little enlightenment. Discussing a British subject, and the hope of arriving at a concept of world citizenship, he said:
We have an approach to it in the concept of a British subject ... It is a brotherhood which is shared by all the members of the empire.
We are talking about the immigration of British subjects to this country. Are hon. gentlemen to my right willing to grant to British subjects coming here from Hong Kong or India the same rights as human beings coming from the United Kingdom? If they are, they will be logical, which would be a change for them, although I would still disagree with them on this amendment.


Mr. REID:: Arising out of the remarks
just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, may I, as one coming from the old country, say a word on behalf of the British subject. . I come to this parliament from the province of British Columbia, a territory which was taken over one hundred years ago by the British people. No other race in this country had anything to do with the development of British Columbia from its early days.
May I point out why we from British Columbia think as we do? When I left Scotland to better my position in life-and I am pleased and proud to say that I did benefit myself by coming to Canada, and I am proud to be a Canadian-I brought with me a love of Scotland which I still have. But this thought must be kept in mind by those who are inclined to ridicule the British stock, that were it not for the British people this country would not be a confederation and I doubt whether we would be sitting here to-day. In British Columbia, eighty per cent of the people come from the British race. They took over that territory in the first place and they
have developed it all the way along with the help of British people. Hence you can understand that the pfeople who come from that province and whose forefathers developed it think that in this year 1946 some little further consideration should be given to the British people in the matter of citizenship.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, this is
the first time that I have spoken in the long debate on this bill. I had hoped to speak on the second reading but unforeseen circumstances prevented me.
I am in a little different position from that of the two last speakers, the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for New Westminster. I was born a Canadian, but that was purely an accident so far as I was concerned1. I think the way it happened was that a certain duke in the Highlands of Scotland wanted to get his tenants off the land and start raising sheep. So that my people had no other course open to them than to go somewhere else to better their condition. They came to this country, and I imagine that they did better their condition, although they passed through some hard times.
The point I rose to make was that I do not agree with the point of view put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Wir>T';'~' North. The people of the British commonwealth, a term I would rather use than the British empire, have something in common with the people of Cahada because we are all a part of the British commonwealth. Consequently when people from other parts of the British commonwealth come here they come here not as foreigners from alien lands. This does not mean that they are any better than the people who come here from any other country. It is simply a recognition that they are in a different position from immigrants from countries outside the commonwealth, because in the commonwealth we all have allegiance to the same king and we are all members of the one family as it were. I see no reason in the world why we should try to alter that position. I do not think it would help us as a nation to do so, nor do I think it would be beneficial to the world in its present state.
Let me say again that I am not boasting of the fact that I am a Canadian or a British subject or anything like that because that was something with which I had nothing to do. I can only consider it my good fortune that it did happen in that way. But there are certain factors, intangible perhaps, that are important. I do not know whether the point has been made but I think it is a good one that the status of a person coming to
Canadian Citizenship

Canada from another part of' the British commonwealth should depend upon whether, after entering this country and being here for a certain period of time, he intended to maintain domicile here and become a citizen of Canada. In that case I do not think he should necessarily have to wait for five years before being accepted into full citizenship.
Another point I wish to make is that I do not believe in the revocation of naturalization certificates. I think that when we give Canadian citizenship he or she should remain a Canadian citizen for keeps. If he breaks the law he should be treated as any other Canadian citizen Who breaks the law and should be punished just as any other Canadian would be punished. To revoke his citizenship and send him back to where he came from is not. the proper thing to do, in my opinion, in this enlightened age. We are here trying to create a Canadian citizenship, and I am all for that. I think the minister is to be commended for bringing in this measure so soon after taking office. I would much rather, when I visit other countries, that I visit them as a Canadian than as a British subject. Let me say again that I am casting no reflections on those who are British subjects. We should try to build up reciprocal relations between ourselves and the other parts of the British commonwealth. There are certain rights and privileges which British subjects have in Canada and which Canadians have in other parts of the commonwealth, I dio not want to see them curtailed in any respect whatsoever.


William Henry Golding: We have an amendment to section
10(1):
. That section 10 (1) (e) be amended by inserting after the word "war" in line 25 the following words:
or is a British subject within the meaning of section 28."
Mr. GRA.YDON: I desire to ask the minister some questions, and I am rather surprised, Mr. Chairman, that you are reading the amendment, because I do not think the debate is quite concluded. Unfortunately I have not been able to be here all the afternoon, and perhaps the Minister of Mines and Resources has carried out the undertaking he gave me the day before yesterday to place upon Hansard for each year the immigration figures from the United Kingdom to Canada. Would he mind doing that now if he has the information available?


Mr. GLEN:: The hon. member for Peel
asked me .the other day if I could state the number of admissions during the fifteen years

which I quoted, and the number of deportations during that period. I have here the statistics of immigration to Canada of British subjects from April 1, 1930, to March 31, 1945:
Immigration to Canada of British Subjects, from April I, 1930, to March 31, 1945.
	From	From	
Fiscal year	overseas	U.S.A.	Totals1930-31 	28,144	2,938	31,0821931-32 	7,332	1,815	9,1471932-33 	3.283	1.806	5,0891933-34 	2,454	1,032	3.4861934-35 	2,408	769	3,1771935-36 	2,264	709	2,9731936-37 	2,521	742	3.2631937-38 	3,351	852	4,2031938-39 	3.831	917	4,7481939-40 	3,962	1.234	5.1961940-41 	3.428	2,064	5.4921941-42 	2,353	1.180	3,5331942-43 	2.524	1,344	3,8681943-44 	4,519	1,101	5,6201944-45 	10,564	907	11,471Totals ....	82,938	19,410	102,348


Gordon Graydon: That is the period in which the fourteen thousand were deported?


James Allison Glen: Yes. May I add a few remarks while I am on my feet? When I was listening to the hon. member for Calgary West, I was struck of course with the manner of his presentation; as a matter of fact, with the manner in which all hon. members have presented their views; but it also seemed to, me that, in dealing with the subject from the immigration point of view, the committee has not exactly appreciated what would happen if this period of five years were abolished. Suppose it happened that an immigrant from the British isles, having all the requisite qualifications to enable him to come to this country, was admitted, and stayed for a year; if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton became the law of the land this man would be entitled to a certificate of permanent landing and citizenship. Suppose that later on, say in another two or three years, it was found that he was a criminal or otherwise came within the prohibitions of the Immigration Act and therefore liable to deportation, and suppose that then the immigration officials proposed to deport him and took the necessary proceedings; he would be able to claim, in view of the citizenship law as amended by the motion of the hon. member for Eglinton, that he could not be deported because by the latest act of the parliament of Canada he had the right of citizenship one year or so after his arrival, and that he had received his certificate, and the immigration authorities would be deprived of the power of deportation which is now contained in the Immigration Act. I think the committee will realize that in such an event a certificate of citizenship, given at

Canadian Citizenship
the end of one year, would need to be revoked. In many cases such as I gave in the list submitted to the committee, there was eminent reason why the persons involved should be deported because, as I pointed out, the effects on the country of procreation by persons mentally unstable created problems with which we would have to deal. Again, if a person who had been here a year was recommended for deportation, he would be in the position of not having a state elsewhere.


Howard Charles Green: Would he not still be a British subject?


James Allison Glen: He has acquired Canadian citizenship.


Howard Charles Green: He is still a British subject.


James Allison Glen: He is still a British subject, of course, but that does not give him the same privileges of going back to Britain as he had before.


Howard Charles Green: It does, under present British law.


James Allison Glen: If he had Canadian citizenship and he went back to Britain he would have to comply with the requirements of the law with regard to immigrants.


Gordon Graydon: Has not the minister now touched upon the very point which has been raised on this side time after time, that the giving of Canadian citizenship does interfere and may sometimes derogate from the position of a British subject?


James Allison Glen: The point I am making is that if a man who comes here is given a certificate after one year, and if the immigration authorities find him unacceptable under the provisions of the immigration law and want to deport him, they cannot do so, assuming [DOT]the hon. member's amendment is passed. We would have two laws in conflict. The hon. member for Eglinton does not think it will be necessary to alter the provisions of the immigration law, but the law officers and the officers of the department are convinced that if this amendment should pass we shall have to alter the immigration law to accord with it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member said he did not want that.
/ '


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said I did not think it was necessary, but if it is, we are all of one mind, surely.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member has been
discussing the matter from one point of view, but I am discussing it from another. I am discussing it from the point of view of immigration, and I wish to reserve and preserve the
provision of the Immigration Act where-under we can deal with undesirable citizens who come to this country, for the reasons which I have given, and which I think are satisfactory to all hon. members. But by this amendment we would be giving absolute citizenship to all immigrants after one year, and that citizenship would have to be revoked in order that they could be deported to their country of origin.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister have
any objection if a provision were inserted in this bill to enable the Department of Immigration to deport, up to a period of five years, people who should be deported?


James Allison Glen: Then what is the use of the
alteration?


Howard Charles Green: Would he have objection if that were done?


James Allison Glen: The point is that all these
laws should be related. We cannot have conflict between two laws-the Immigration Act enabling men to enter the country, and another law saying we cannot deport them.


Howard Charles Green: If that provision were inserted in the citizenship bill we could still deport them.


James Allison Glen: I do not see the necessity for
it at all. I believe the bill as now framed gives exactly the same rights and privileges to a British subject as he has had for twenty-seven years. As the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out, any immigrant to this country from the British isles can obtain the privilege of voting or of being nominated to any office in the country after one year, but he has not absolute citizenship until the lapse ' of five years,,, during which time his record may be investigated and he would be subject to deportation if he had not conformed with our immigration laws during that period of five years. This law does no more than that. It takes nothing away from a citizen coming from the old country; he is in exactly the same position as he was in before. The only difference is on the question of procedure and the fact that he can now obtain documentary evidence of his citizenship, whereas before he did not. I take a strong position in this matter, because naturally I shall be faced with the duty of dealing with immigrants coming to this country and if the powers of the immigration law are removed by the bill we are now discussing, by virtue of an amendment such as is proposed by the hon. member for Eglinton we shall defeat the very purposes of
Canadian Citizenship

the immigration law and create difficulties which it will be hard to surmount. That, I suggest, would be harmful to the country.


Mr. McMASTER:: The whole basis of the argument put forward by the Minister of Mines and Resources has been that we must wait for five years to find out whether a man should be deported for some defect or because of some crime which could not be discovered at the time he came in. The minister gave figures the other day of the number of deportations from 1930 to 1945 and yet, when asked for the number of immigrants that had come in, he gave only the number that came in between the same years, 1930 and 1945. In other words, he overlooked the very basis of his own argument that anyone here for five years should be deported for certain reasons. Why did he not give the number of immigrants who came from Britain in the five years preceding 1930? We know that immigration fell off largely from 1930 on because of conditions that prevailed in this country. I find that there came to Canada from the British isles in 1926, which would be within the five-year period, 48,000; in 1927, 52,000; in 1928, 55,000; in 1929, 66,000; in 1930, which may have been included in the minister's figures, 31,000; the next year, 7,000; and down to as low as three thousand.
No fair comparison can be made as between the number of immigrants who came in and those who were deported unless we go back to 1925, particularly in view of the fact that that is the very basis of the argument the minister used. The fact is that over 225,000 came from the British isles from 1926 to 1930. Adding that to the 80,000 mentioned by the minister, you will find that over 300,000 Britishers came in, and the total sent back for crimes was, using the figure the minister gave, about 1,740. That would be less than two per cent of those who came in; in fact, far less than one per cent.
What about the rest of Canada? Was the rest of Canada good during all that time?
I agree with the hon. member from Vancouver East who said that if you make a man a Canadian citizen you should take him for better or for worse, just as you do if you marry a woman, and these people should not be sent back for crimes committed a considerable time after they came here. The minister mentioned 1,746 crimes committed by these 300,000 Britishers. What about all Canadians? I find that in 1930, when we deported several hundred Britishers because they had committed crimes-I am referring to indictable crimes and not the lesser offences -there were indictable crimes committed in Canada to the extent of 34,000; in 1931,

36,000; in 1932, 36,000-and all this time, remember, we were sending Britishers back because they committed crimes-in 1934, 38,000; in 1935, 37,000; and in 1936, 41,000. In other words, it did not stop crime in Canada. In 1937 there were 42,000 such crimes; in 1938, 48,000; in 1939, 53,000.
After all, I do not think these Britishers were so bad. They might be said to be at least the equal of those who were here. As a matter of fact, in computing the number of crimes committed throughout Canada, in the ten years I have spoken of, I find they amounted to three per cent for the whole period, whereas the number committed by Britishers was much less than two per cent; in fact, less than one per cent.
The Minister of Labour in half-hesitating way put his finger on the cause of deportation when he said that during that time many Britishers asked to be deported. I live in a good district of Toronto, in fact, the best district, but on our borders are a large number of people who lived in moderate circumstances-tradesmen, men working on buildings and so on-and many of them lost their jobs. I know many of those people who asked to be deported. They came to my office and said they wanted to go back to England where some of them had friends who would provide for them. At their own request they were seeking a return to the old country and at that time it was suggested that some of them were going back to take the dole. We used to use the word "dole" in those days in reference to unemployment insurance, and those people would be quite indignant when the word was used in their hearing. They would get angry and say, "It is not a dole but unemployment insurance." In fact, it was unemployment insurance such as this government introduced into this country during the last few years.
Therefore we have no reason to say that these people were unsatisfactory citizens, though the conditions here were unsatisfactory to them at that time. The present government, and also perhaps our own prior Conservative government, were to blame. People with a child of six would receive, in addition to what milk was put on their doorstep, the sum of eighty-one cents a week to' support the sixth child. These men had, therefore, * reason to be dissatisfied with Canada and to ask to be deported.
I really cannot understand the position taken against the amendment by the people who themselves came from the old country.
I can only assume that in every walk of life, there are those who are most severe against their own people and take a contrary attitude
Canadian Citizenship
when they get away from their old traditions. But we who claim to be of the third or fourth generation believe that these people are good people and we want to give them a chance. If we had given them a chance they would have been good citizens. I agree with the hon. member who suggested that we might safely adopt British citizens after one year, for better or for worse.


James Allison Glen: The hon. gentleman who has just spoken has almost intimated that I might have some prejudice against Britishers coming to this country. I have no prejudices, as he can understand, and as the committee will appreciate. We shall be glad to have them. But I take the position that any immigrant coming to Canada must be in exactly the same position as I was in. I was subject to the laws of the country, and if I were not a suitable immigrant that country had the power to deport me to Scotland. In other words, the immigration law deals with the individual and not with the race, and if the individual has the qualifications necessary he will be welcomed to the country. I hope the hon. gentleman will not seek to convey the idea that I would be against immigration from Britain, because we have many inquiries and I shall be glad to see them here myself.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not believe the minister's attitude in this matter is any different from my own. We are both of British stock. Would he, however, care to place on the record the number of deportations of British subjects that were sent back at their own request? Perhaps the department does not have that detailed information, but I am sure it would be appreciated by the committee if we could get it.


James Allison Glen: I do not know if the information is available in that form. I shall make inquiries, and if it is available I shall be glad to give it.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I have one or two questions on which I should like to get some information. I would be in sympathy with the amendment if it were confined and could be confined to the people who are in the mind's of those who wish to see the amendment go through, namely, the people from the British isles; but the amendment reads as follows:
That section 10 (1) (e) be amended by inserting after the word "war" in line 25, the following words:
"or is a British subject within the meaning of section 28."
Turning to section 28 we find this:
A person, who has acquired the status of British subject by birth or naturalization under
the laws of any country of the British commonwealth other than Canada to which he was subject at the time of his birth or naturalization, shall he recognized in Canada as a British subject.
I am not too certain that the people in British Guiana are of the same state of mind or educational advancement with regard to democracy as we think we are in Canada. If I read contemporary history correctly I am not too sure that the Dutch Boers and the negro population of South Africa and some of the people down there who came from Great Britain have the same conception of democracy as we have. I do not know whether the native population of Australia may be called British subjects. I do not know to what extent the many generations of civil servants who originally came from Britain and their descendants whose blood in some cases may be mixed with the British subjects of India, are in exactly the same position as we are in regard to the development of democratic institutions. I am not saying this to detract from any values they have.
It has been argued that by admitting these people under this amendment we would be admitting people who would be in the same state of development with regard to democracy as we are. I do not think the argument holds good when we take into consideration those who are described in section 28. Unless I have assurance on. that one way or the other, I shall have to vote against the amendment.
There is something else to which I should like to refer, and I wish my hon. friends opposite to take these remarks in the same spirit in which I am trying to use them. I am a native of Canada, and come from many generations who were natives of Canada. My blood contains blood from all of the original immigrants to the maritimes with the exception of French. In this country we have almost three and a half million people of French descent. Why not add to this amendment the words, "people from France"? There is an affiliation there. Unless an amendment of this kind is clearly defined, some of us who are trying to be honest and fair about this matter, and who have not too much training in legal technicalities, are being put in an impossible position.
I am giving the Secretary of State credit for having given consideration to all these factors. When I spoke on this matter earlier I indicated that this was one time that a minister of this government had done something which pleased me. I have not yet seen any reason why I should change that statement. I like the bill the way it is. I
Canadian Citizenship

shall have to vote for it the way it is unless somebody brings forward something better than has been offered up to date.


Mr. FULTON:: I realize that the committee is anxious to come to a vote on this subject, but possibly an opportunity should be given to the hon. member for Temiscouata to bring another definition before the committee.
I was interested! in the remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current because I think he will receive his answer.. It is contained within the bill. Further than that, I understand that he will receive his answer from the hon. member for Eglinton. At that time I shall be interested in seeing which way he votes on this amendment.
Judging from the remarks of the last few speakers, I believe it is generally agreed that if we could arrive at an agreement as to the importance of this amendment, then we might achieve unanimity either in adopting or rejecting it. As the arguments developed it became apparent to my mind that hon. gentlemen opposite felt that we had failed to make out a case to show that if the section carries as it stands unamended, then the condition of the British subject coming to Canada in the future will be in no way prejudiced. I should like to revert to that question for a moment. If we were convinced that the lot of the non^Canadian British subject coming into Canada in the future were not to be changed by the section, if we were convinced after all that has been said as to the desirability of unanimity in this connection, we would most certainly not prolong our advocacy of this amendment; but we are not convinced.
I should like to refer the Secretary of State to his words as they appear on page 503 of Hansard, which he used on introducing the bill for second reading. He said;
Under this bill we are seeking to establish clearly a basic and definite Canadian citizenship which will be the fundamental status upon which the rights and privileges of Canadians will depend.
I referred to these words two nights ago and asked the minister to explain them in view of his later statement that this bill will make no difference to the rights of the British subject coming into Canada. The minister said that I was trying to put an interpretation on his words. I do not think that is strictly accurate. I merely quoted his words and asked him to explain them. I repeat my request to the Secretary of State. I ask him what he means by "rights and privileges of Canadians"? It seems to me that these words, as he used them, can only mean that the rights and privileges of Canadians will ctepend upon the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.

In the debate so far it has been generally agreed that up until the time this bill becomes law the British subject coming to Canada has all the rights and privileges of other Canadians, at least within a year, and probably has them when he lands. Now, however, his rights and privileges are to be dependent upon the acquisition of citizenship, and that is going to take him five years. The minister does not agree. I can see that we are still not at one on this question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to state the situation again? Let it be clearly understood so that there will be no question about it. Under this bill every right, every privilege which the British subject had and has to-day will continue. Need there be any more affirmation on that point?


Howard Charles Green: It is not quite that simple.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. gentleman
show me what right or privilege the British subject will lose after the passage of this bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mere constant repetition does not constitute proof. The minister has stated that over and over again. He has stated that under this bill the British subject is not losing a right. On one occasion I agreed with him. I said: "Not under this bill." This bill does not take anything away from the British subject now in the country, but it does impose an obstacle on British subjects coming into the country in the future.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What obstacle?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That obstacle is that they will have to wait for five years before they can acquire Canadian citizenship. It is generally agreed that at present, to all intents and purposes, they acquire it the day they land or, at the most, after having established domicile for one year.
This five-year provision will have an effect the moment an act is passed making any of these fundamental rights and duties dependent upon' Canadian citizenship. We have been assured it is not the intention of this government to pass such an act, but many of the rights and duties which Canadians enjoy are dependent upon provincial statutes. Personally I think it would be quite right, once having defined the status of Canadian citizenship, to make the rights and duties of Canadians dependent upon the acquisition of that status. I think that would be a right and proper thing to do. The avowed purpose of this bill, in the words of the minister, is to

Canadian Citizenship
define the status and to make the acquisition of rights dependent upon the acquisition of that status. Therefore, if you place an obstacle, whether it be a temporal obstacle or a physical obstacle such as actual restriction, in the way of the acquisition of the status, then you impose that obstacle in the way of the acquisition of those rights and duties.
I am not going to repeat the arguments which have been advanced as to the desirability of maintaining a uniform status of British subjects throughout -the commonwealth. I think we have Seen a great deal of unanimity this afternoon as to that point. Therefore what I am trying to say is that we have good grounds for our contention that by this bill we in Canada are discriminating against the British subject as no other part of the empire has so far done. I realize that is not a pleasant thing to say about a bill introduced by this government, and I did say the other evening that I thought it was done inadvertently. But in support of my contention that so "far Canada alone is imposing this restriction, this obstacle to British subjects, I should like to read a newspaper article I came across the other day, in order to contrast our attitude and our actions with those of the United Kingdom government. In the Victorian Daily Colonist of February 1, under the date line of London, England, January 31, appears a report that Mr. E. Thurtle, labour member at Westminster, asked whether the British government intended to continue admitting citizens of Eire to the British civil service. His question was asked in view of the recent announcement by Mr. De Valera that citizens of Eire were not British subjects. The report in the Colonist continued:
Glanvil Hall, financial secretary to the treasury, in a written reply said: "According to the law of the United Kingdom, citizens of Eire, with few exceptions, are British subjects and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom does not propose to discriminate against them in making appointments to the civil service."
There I think you have a definite distinction between the attitudes adopted by the two governments. You have the one country, Eire, going so far as to say her citizens are not British subjects; yet you still have the government of the United Kingdom saying that because they are British subjects they will not discriminate against them, that all they have to do is come to the United Kingdom and they may become civil servants immediately. I submit that no one could criticize any government for making appointment to the civil
service, for instance, dependent upon the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. The moment that is done it means that a British subject coming from the United Kingdom cannot be appointed to the civil service for a period of five years. Without for the moment entering into the question of whether that is a good or bad thing, it means that a British subject coming to this country from any other part of the commonwealth must wait for five years before he can receive that appointment. Then it is quite logical to assume that the bar society of British Columbia, for instance, may restrict the enrolment of students to those who are Canadian citizens. Then a British subject from Australia, New Zealand or the United Kingdom would have to wait for five years after coming to this country before he could be enrolled as a law student. There are many ways in which it would be quite possible for this.bill to be made the basis of discrimination against British subjects, as compared with the rights they now enjoy. As I have said, at the present time a citizen of Eire, whose government has said it does not regard its people as British subjects, may become a civil servant as soon as he arrives in the United Kingdom.
That being the case, I suggest that we in Canada in justice can do no less than the same thing that is being done in the United Kingdom and all the other parts of the empire; that is, to continue to give British subjects their right to acquire citizenship on entry. No one on this side of the house, and I imagine no one in any part of the house, would have any objection to requiring a British subject to file a formal declaration of intention. I think it would be perfectly proper to require him to declare his intention of residing in Canada for the necessary period, but I submit it is inescapable that as long as we retain the five-year clause in this bill and make it apply to British subjects just as it applies to emigrants from other parts of the world, then we in Canada are open to the charge that we have been derogating from the status of a British subject.
One objection advanced by the Minister of Mines and Resources was that he requires this five-year period because he must be able to deport undesirable immigrants. That objection, I believe, can be met in section 21 of the present bill. The minister has said that if a person is allowed to become a citizen at the end of a year, that right is irrevocable. I would point out that under section 21 there is provision for the revocation of a certificate of naturalization.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Canadian Citizenship

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was in the process of discussing the objections of the Minister of Mines and Resources to the present amendment. As far as I could understand, they were largely a repetition of what he said last night. My answer must be, as it was last night, that if he foresees in the present amendment danger to his powers under the Immigration Act, then under section 21 of the present bill as it now stands there is preserved to the Secretary of State all the powers necessary to protect this country against the danger, largely fancied I think, of the undesirable British subject who may be an immigrant to this country. I can only repeat what I said on a previous occasion that if the Minister of Mines and Resources has any specific fears on that score and if he does not feel that there exists ample power under section 21 it would be within the rights of this parliament to amend that section to give him all the powers he requires.
That being the case, and in view of the fact that there was such a large degree of unanimity this afternoon as to the desirability of preserving the present status of British subjects in this dominion, I would close simply by repeating my request to the Secretary of State that he explain to the committee the meaning of his words which are to be found on page 503 of Hansard:
Under this bill we are seeking to establish clearly a basic and definite Canadian citizenship which will be the fundamental status upon which the rights and privileges of Canadians will depend.
I ask him to explain how those words can be reconciled with his subsequent statement that a British subject from any part of the empire coming to this country must wait for five years before he acquires the status of a Canadian citizen.


Howard Charles Green: There are one or two points I should like to mention this evening. The Secretary of State said on Monday, as
reported on page 1015 of Hansard:
. . . the hill will not and does not remove one iota of the rights and privileges that are now enjoyed by British subjects in Canada.
He has repeated that at different times, both in his remarks and by way of interjection when other members were speaking. I think he is not correct. In the first place, as the bill was originally presented a British subject had to appear in the naturalization court. That certainly changed his rights; it changed his position and was a detriment. The government has admitted that by with-

drawing the provision and providing that he need not appear in naturalization court. Then there are other rights and privileges at stake, and I refer you, Mr. Chairman, and the ministers concerned to the election act which was passed last year by the province of Quebec. This is chapter 15 of the statutes of that province. Section 47 sets out the qualifications of electors, which are as follows:
1.	Has been domiciled in the province for at least twelve months immediately preceding the date fixed for the enumeration;
2.	Is domiciled in a polling subdivision on the first day fixed for the enumeration;
3.	Is of the full age of twenty-one years on or before the polling day;
4.	Is of Canadian nationality;
5.	Is not affected by any disqualification from voting contemplated by this act.
I understand that before that the provision was that an elector must be a British subject. Here is one provincial government that has the qualification that a voter must be of Canadian nationality. There is a distinct loss of rights if the citizenship bill now before the committee goes through in its present form. I realize that the Dominion Elections Act contains the qualification -that a voter must be a British subject and we have had the asurance of the minister that that act will not be changed. However, the minister is not in a position to say that provincial election acts will not be changed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have no power.


Howard Charles Green: Here is one instance where a change has been made less than a year ago and I have no doubt that a similar change will be made in Saskatchewan. It will probably be only a matter of time before changes will be made in other provinces or in other legislation. For example, there is the old age pension legislation in which a change may be made. The minister is stretching a point when he says that no rights or privileges are being taken away by this bill.
We have asked in this amendment that there be a distinction made between the British subject and the alien. The basic reason for that request is that the person coming here from a partner nation in the commonwealth has had training in our British institutions, in our parliamentary government, and has the same general outlook. I do not think there is a person on the government side of the house who would deny that a person coming from another British nation is better qualified to become a Canadian citizen because of his experience and background than the person who comes from another country such as Russia or China. We are asking that that difference be acknowledged by this bill.
Canadian Citizenship
As far as I can. see, the only reason put forth by the government for not making that distinction is that it will complicate the administration of the Immigration Act. The defence put forward is based on the Immigration Act and that is not a proper answer to our submission. Surely the position is the same with the Immigration Act. In the partner nations of the commonwealth we have Canadian facilities for examining immigrants to make sure that a person is not allowed to come to Canada who will not be able to establish a permanent citizenship here. The Immigration Department has far better facilities for making the necessary investigations and doing the necessary checking in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand than it has in Holland or Russia. I do not think anyone would contend to the contrary. Therefore I submit that' one way out of this difficulty would be to have the Immigration Act amended so that a British subject from one of the partner nations of the commonwealth should not be deported after a shorter period than five years, should not be deported, say after three years. It should be possible to check up on a person from another British nation within three years if it takes five years to check up on a person coming from outside the commonwealth. I put that suggestion before the ministers concerned because I think it is one way out of the difficulty.
But if they do not feel free to accept that suggestion, why not provide in this citizenship bill itself that there be power to depbrt up to five years, although citizenship be granted to such a British subject in a shorter time? In other words, retain the power to deport up to five years. These people will not be stateless; they are still British subjects and that status is carefully preserved for them under the bill as drawn. I think you can get around the difficulty, leaving the Immigration Act as it is, if the government will not cut down the time under that act to three years for a British subject, and yet providing in this bill that a person entering Canada from a partner British nation can get citizenship within a shorter time than persons coming from, say Russia or China. I would ask the two ministers concerned to give these suggestions serious consideration because, if something like that were done, I do not think there would be reason for much controversy over the other provisions of this bill and we might be able to get it through practically unanimously.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I asked the minister a question which is recorded on page 1003 of Hansard, and the same subject was mentioned 63260-72
this afternoon in connection with section 28, which has a distinct bearing on the section before us. Section 28 states:
A person, who has acquired the status of British subject by birth . . .
As the hon. member for Kamloops has pointed out, most of the citizens of the Irish Free State were born British subjects but they have renounced the status of a British subject. Is the minister now prepared to answer the question I asked at that time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar asked the same question and it was agreed that we would discuss it under the pertinent section, section 28.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to say a brief word to clear up several problems that seem to have arisen during the course of the discussion.
The hon. member for Swift Current raised the question of the position of British subjects coming from lands outside the selfgoverning nations of the commonwealth. It will have been observed that my amendment confines the privilege which I suggest ought to be given to those within the scope of section 28. Section 28 refers to:
A person, who has acquired the status of British subject by birth or naturalization under the laws of any country of the British commonwealth other than Canada.
Section 2(g) defines "country of the British commonwealth" as "a country listed' in the first schedule to this act," and the first schedule to the act embraces only the self-governing nations of the commonwealth. So that we are not concerned in this amendment, with persons coming to this country from other than selfgoverning nations of the commonwealth.
The Secretary of State indicated that he would present an amendment to section 10. The house will welcome that amendment. But it does not touch the point I raised in my amendment. There is no escape from the issue raised there.
Someone has spoken of the desirability of unanimity on this bill, and I endorse that sentiment completely. No one would have been happier than I to see complete unanimity, and the minister will bear me out when I say I had hoped that we might approach this bill with unanimity, but apparently that has not been possible.
The immigration regulations really have no part in the debate on this amendment. I made it clear in everything I said in support of .the amendment that I am assuming the provisions of the Immigration Act will remain inviolate. If there is the slightest doubt in the mind of the Minister of Mines and Resources it would



BBVXSED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Citizenship
[Stage Direction]
be very simple for him to introduce the requisite amendment to make that perfectly plain beyond the shadow of doubt. So let us not have this question confused by raising these points about immigration.
As I followed the remarks of the Secretary of State to-day, he said that one reason why he could not give support to this amendment was the problem raised' by the Immigration Act. If we are to amend the provisions of the Immigration Act, there cannot be any objection in principle to my amendment.
The one point remaining is that raised by the Secretary of State as to deporting someone to whom a certificate of citizenship has already been granted. We have had it from the Secretary of State himself that, after all, no change is made by this bill in the status of a British subject coming to this country.
Mr. MACKENZIE:: We heard the opposite from the hon. member for Kamloops just before six o'clock, because he said that the rights and privileges of Canadians were absolutely destroyed by this bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know what the
Minister is referring to. I am dealing with the statement made by the Secretary of State.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Kamloops said before six o'clock that the rights and privileges of Canadians were taken away by this bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am dealing now with
the point raised by'.the Secretary of State, the question of deporting those now enjoying the rights of citizenship. The right of deportation at the present time is being exercised in the case of those who, according to the argument of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon and on the reasoning of the two ministers are to-day citizens in the eyes of our law.
On the next question which has been advanced, the Secretary of State, I suggest, has raised for himself a dilemma in the course of the argument on the bill. He has said that it is in effect the same citizenship as now exists. He has said that in substance we are only legislating what is the practice. If that is the case; if the rights of citizenship are in effect, continuing the right of franchise as heretofore, the only difference created by the bill is the grant of a certificate. Why make that exception in the position of the British subject for that one mere trifle? If that is the only difference the bill is making, why raise this distinction against British subjects in the bill?

The other horn of the dilemma is-and this is the basis on which I understood the bill was first put before the house-that this was said to be a measure of far-reaching importance, that it would make a substantial change, that it was something of a new advent in legislation in this country. If that is the case- and I think the earlier contributions to the debate from the other side were in that vein rather than in the vein in which later remarks have been made-this new possession, this new citizenship, is not to be enjoyed by British subjects coming to this country from other parts of the commonwealth, except on substantially the same basis as aliens.
We have one new point, and I welcome it, because it led me to hope that we might arrive at some unanimity with respect to the question raised by the amendment. The ministers who spoke-particularly, in this respect, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture- indicated this afternoon a desire to preserve what they regarded and described as the present status of the British subject resident in this country, his present citizenship. That is precisely the desire to which this amendment seeks to give legislative effect. It has been assumed by the ministers that no other changes are to be made in existing legislation, whether federal or provincial, and that no practical difference will arise between the Canadian citizen as he will be created under this bill and the man who has enjoyed the right to call himself a citizen heretofore, the man who has had all the rights of citizenship, as we are told, namely a British subject resident in this country for a lesser period than five years.
I say that we now are in agreement that it is desirable that the full rights of citizenship now enjoyed by the British citizen from another part of the commonwealth who is in this country during the five-year period should be preserved to him. There is no argument left against this amendment of the bill, because a British subject of the kind I have mentioned will lose something under this bill; he will lose the right to call himself a citizen of this country, because once this bill becomes law the position is inescapable that there are only three classes of persons within the scope of this present discussion. There is the Canadian citizen; there is the alien; there is the British subject resident in this country who is waiting for the expiration of five years in order to qualify himself for citizenship. The man who is a British subject from another part of the commonwealth after taking up domicile here is no citizen; he has no right to call himself a citizen. This bill deprives such a person, compared with people who came to the country prior to the enactment
Canadian Citizenship
of this bill, of the right to call himself a citizen, and we have it from the minister that that man is a citizen to-day. That is what this bill takes away from him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The right to call himself a citizen of Canada. Do I have to repeat it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister cannot see it on reading the bill I shall go over it again. There is, for this purpose, the citizen under the bill; there is the alien coming to this land, and there is the British subject from other parts of the commonwealth coming here. During the five-year period which must elapse while he enjoys the franchise under the elections act as it is at present, and has the right, we are told, to stand for election to parliament, nevertheless he is not under this bill a Canadian citizen; and that is the status which this bill, if adopted, takes from him. If we are at one in the professed desire of the ministry to preserve the present status of citizenship of the British subject from other parts of the commonwealth acquired either immediately, as the Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon, or at the end of the one-year period-which is the test under the elections act-then the only way to express it is to adopt the amendment proposed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This afternoon I had
intended to ask two further questions when I was interrogating the minister, but I did not get a chance to finish. I should therefore like to ask now two short questions. Section 10, subsection 1 (c) reads, at line 23:
. . . except where the applicant has served outside of Canada in the armed forces of Canada during time of war . . .
If, say a Polish citizen, one of the many races whose refugees fled to England after war broke out, joined while there a Canadian regiment and served on the continent of Europe, if he comes to Canada and remains here one year, will he then be able to qualify?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he fought for Canada, yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If a United States citizen came to Canada to train in any of our camps, remained here a year, pfoceeded overseas with some unit of our forces and returns to Canada, would he be eligible for Canadian citizenship in one year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, if he fought for Canada outside Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I have been wondering is this. Take the case of a non-British 63260-721
citizen from Europe who served in a Canadian regiment. He marches into Holland alongside a British regiment, because our battalions and the British battalions were together under General Sir Bernard Montgomery. Would the British soldier who fought alongside the Polish soldier, if he came to Canada, have to be here for five years before he has full citizenship? I was just wondering if the minister had taken that distinction into consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The soldier in that case is identified with the country. The point is that he served in the armed forces of Canada and fought with the Canadian forces overseas, and that gives him citizenship.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The non-British soldier would get citizenship in one year, but the British soldier fighting alongside of him would not get it under five years?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he came in he would, of course, have the right to vote and do everything as a British subject. He is a British subject. He could come to Canada and have the privileges of Canadian citizenship.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But he would not get
his full citizenship until five years had expired?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He would not get his certificate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The other day the hon. member for High Park asked the minister a question. He took a hypothetical case. He asked: Assume that the bill comes into force on June 1 and suppose that on June 2 a Canadian soldier overseas marries an English girl; would she become a Canadian citizen? The minister answered that she would not be a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under this bill all war brides will automatically become Canadian citizens. But in the case put to me, it was the day after this bill comes into force. In that case that British subject woman would have to wait for one year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: She would have to wait for only one year?


Thomas John Bentley: This afternoon I was discussing some parts of the British world not likely to come within the scope of the requirements as suggested by the amendment. The amendment is predicated on people from certain parts of Britain, the self-governing colonies or dominions, or nations as described in section 28. I wish, however, to mention another country, which I did not refer to this afternoon, more for courtesy's sake than for any other reason. If we want to put some
Canadian Citizenship

people in a preferred position-and I do not think there should be any change in the bill

and we look to a country where the people have always exercised the kind of democratic procedure we have, then we could not possibly apply the present amendment to them. I refer to the little island of Newfoundland. The people there have submitted to government by a commission, and I cannot foresee any situation arising in Canada in which Canadians would submit to rule by commission. I would rather have a Tory government than that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certain references 'have been made in the last few minutes by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to what I said this afternoon. He said that I stated that as a result of this bill the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens were being abrogated. What I said this evening before six o'clock was that under this bill as it stands the rights and privileges as Canadian citizens of British subjects who have so far been admitted to Canada are not being abrogated but that the rights and privileges of British subjects who may hereafter seek admission to Canada will be prejudiced; and that, inasmuch as that is the case, Canada, if the bill is adopted-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How are they
prejudiced?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Canada, as the bill stands, by unilaterally derogating from the rights and privileges of British subjects, is inviting similar derogation on the part of other empire countries. That was my whole point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I should like to ask him a simple question. I believe my hon. friend before six o'clock made a differentiation between rights and privileges of the British subject in Canada and such rights and privileges as they might have under the citizenship of Canada. Is that correct?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not correct.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is my memory of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am unable to obtain a proof of the statement I made, but my point was that the rights and privileges of British subjects who hereafter seek admission will be different.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I made the point here in my speech this afternoon.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I shall be glad to say it again if the committee wishes.
IMr. Bentley.]


An hon. MEMBER:: No, not that. [DOT]


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speaking on April 2, the Secretary of State said, with reference to this Bill:
Under this bill we are seeking to establish clearly a basic and definite Canadian citizenship which will be the fundamental status upon which the rights and privileges of Canadians will depend.
With that statement I have no quarrel; no member on this side has any quarrel. That is a very proper statement to make. But implicit in that statement is the declaration that any person coming to the country and seeking rights and privileges wjiich we as Canadians enjoy, which everyone of the twelve million people here now enjoys, will be required to assume to himself and to acquire the status of a Canadian citizen. I think that is a very proper position. We have all agreed that this bill is in principle a good one inasmuch as it attempts, and its object is, to set up and define the position of Canadian citizen and to give to a Canadian the right in law to say, "I am a Canadian citizen." If we are agreed on that, I fail to see how we can disagree when we say that the person who is unable to say, " I am a Canadian citizen," will have fewer rights and privileges than we have now, and therefore the person who is denied for five years-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the difference?


Edmund Davie Fulton: the right to say, "I am a Canadian citizen", will not share the same rights and privileges which the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I have now and which will be the status of the British subject coming to this country the day after this bill as it stands is law.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says, "nonsense".


Mr.   MACKENIE@: Yes, absolutely, and I meant it too.


Gordon Graydon: That is not parliamentary.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then I say it is not correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am perfectly willing to have the minister point out to me where I am wrong. We are striving for unanimity-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to point out to the hon. member where he is wrong, but I would rather have the committee point out to him that he is not right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All I can say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs is that on occasion his lack of understanding passes comprehen-
Canadian Citizenship
sion. We have been striving, we are told, after unanimity, but if in order to achieve unanimity it is necessary to substitute a set of brains in the minister's head for what he has now, we shall never achieve it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Another red herring.


Mr. GILLIS:: I have no intention of delaying the committee on this matter. We have sat here for weeks and weeks now discussing the question of citizenship and my impression this evening is that some of the lawyers in this house should go and get a legal opinion on it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: From you?


Clarence Gillis: You can consult a good firm. We have listened to at least a dozen lawyers and the interpretation which each places on this very simple matter is different. They lack either intelligence or expert legal training and that is why I say they should go and consult some good lawyer and find out where they stand. I am going to be frank about this matter. I have read this clause carefully and I cannot find anything wrong with it. I think this simple amendment injected into it is merely a matter of giving some free legal training to some young aspiring lawyers; and, taking advantage of the fact that the Secretary of State is an old practising lawyer, we are getting some pointers on this, because there is no doubt that some of them in the future, under this bill, will be extracting some pretty nice fees. After they have the necessary expert advice from the Secretary of State they will be able to use it to good advantage. Personally I believe we are wasting a great deal of valuable time. Someone is trying to make a lot of cheap political capital out of this. I see' no reason in the world why we should change the bill from what it is. I suggest that we get down to business and take a vote on this matter, so that we can begin to deal with matters which are of more importance.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Well, sit down.


Clarence Gillis: In the nine weeks that my Tory friends have been rising in their places making cheap political capital out of this measure-


Robert Henry McGregor: The hon. member has done his share.


Clarence Gillis: This is the first time that I have risen to say anything on the subject.


Mr. BROOKS:: The hon. member is a good judge of cheap political capital.


Clarence Gillis: I would not have taken part in this debate at this time were it not that I have become disgusted with the line of
chatter that has come from my right. I am sure that if the people of the country read the press and think of the many matters that are of pressing importance in Canada at the present time, such as employment, taxes and all these things that affect them directly, they must think that this House of Commons is becoming merely a debating society,, that we lack common sense and that we are wasting too much time on the subject matter of this bill.
In my opinion the amendment is irrelevant. It is unnecessary; it is a lot of nonsense, and it is about time that we got down to business and voted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the amendment carry ?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Ross Macdonald: All those in favour of the amendment will please say, "yea".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


William Ross Macdonald: Those opposed will please say, "nay".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


William Ross Macdonald: In my opinion the "nays" have it. The amendment is lost.


Mr. HLYNKA:: I should like to bring up two matters in connection with paragraph (d) of subsection 1 of section 10, and paragraph (f) of subsection 1 of the same section. These are matters in regard to which I should like to obtain some information from the minister. My first point has'to do with applicants who apply for naturalization certificates and who unfortunately at one time or another happened to have been on relief. From personal knowledge I know that in Edmonton a number of people, through no fault of their own, were forced to go on relief in the thirties. They were refused naturalization certificates when they applied because there was an outstanding relief debt marked against them.
A resident of Canada who is a good citizen should not be penalized or discriminated against when it comes to a matter such as relief. I have personal knowledge of a number of these cases. I tried to see that these people got fair treatment. I endeavoured to assist them in whatever way I could, and yet in practically every case the judge would refuse to grant an application unless the applicant wiped out the outstanding relief payments which he had drawn. I know there is nothing in the bill requiring an applicant to repay the debt, but the judges take it
Canadian Citizenship

upon themselves to order these people to repay the debt. I have known families with two, three or even more children who in the thirties became deeply indebted in the matter of relief. It seems unreasonable now to demand that these people repay $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 of this relief money. If they are asked to repay it, why should not the Canadian-born do the same? It is not their fault that the governments of the day failed to give them an opportunity to make a living. Therefore I appeal to the minister to request the judges to grant certificates to these people so that they may be treated the same as Canadian-born persons when it comes to a matter of relief money.
The other matter upon which I should like ;o touch briefly deals with a particular case which I have in mind, but it covers a certain principle which has been overlooked, disregarded or ignored, not by the applicant but by the government. The care and the amount of work the minister and his advisers have put into the preparation of this bill are a good indication that various sections which have been included in the bill are important and should be observed. These sections are embodied in the bill for a definite purpose and they should be followed. At least the government should set an example in this regard. But I desire to draw the attention of hon. members as a matter of principle to the case of Sam Carr, who until recently lived in Toronto, and who obtained his certificate of citizenship within the, last two years or so in spite of his anti-Canadian attitude.


Angus MacInnis: He was a Liberal pal in those days.


Anthony Hlynka: That may be so. I am not dealing particularly with Mr. Carr, but with the principle which is involved. According to the information which I have, Mr. Carr came to Canada in 1924. In 1929 he went to Moscow to study at the Lenin Institute and [DOT]returned to Canada in 1931. He was arrested for internment in September, 1942, and was released conditionally by the present government, and yet some time prior to the Grey North by-election and the general election Mr. 'Carr was granted a citizenship certificate. I should like the minister, not necessarily to-[DOT]day, but to-morrow or the day after, to answer five questions in regard to this matter. It is not that I particularly desire to have these * answers myself, but I think the people of *this country should know what happened in this case. I am not reflecting in any way upon the present minister or his predecessors. The Secretary of State is a conscientious

minister, and this happened before he took over the department. But I want some information on this matter, because we cannot afford to be so lax as to grant naturalization to individuals who during the first part of the war held a definite view against the interests of Canada. It seems to me there is something wrong here. It does not matter what party is in power; no bargains should be made with any individual or group of individuals when it comes to matters of this sort. I do not know if this were done, but it will be up to the minister to give this house the information I seek. These are the questions:
1.	On what date did Mr. Sam Carr of Toronto make his first application for a naturalization certificate?
2.	Were any of his applications turned down? If so, on what grounds, and by whom?
3.	On what date was Mr. Carr's application approved, and who was the presiding judge?
4.	Who investigated the facts concerning Mr. Carr's eligibility to become a Canadian citizen?
5.	Upon whose recommendation was Mr. Carr's application approved? What are the names, occupations and addresses of those persons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: First, may I say that I fully concur in what the hon. gentleman has said, that no one should be deprived of the right to Canadian citizenship under this bill, or for that matter under the existing Naturalization Act, on the mere ground that he owes somebody else some money. Poverty is not and should not be in any way a disqualification from a right that should be open to everyone in this country regardless of economic position, regardless of race, religion or any of these matters. I may assure the hon. gentleman with all the force at my command that in the administration of this measure and the regulations which will be passed pursuant to the authority given under it, some of the abuses that have existed heretofore will not be allowed to continue, in so far as I have any power to prevent them.
The hon. member for Rosthern brought to my attention last fall an instance where in a certain part of western Canada a particular judge had refused two individuals the right to become naturalized on the mere ground that one owed a fairly large debt and the other owed a smaller debt. That judge, to the extent of the powers then existing, was told that he had acted contrary to the spirit of the act, and I can only say that in the

Canadian Citizenship
regulations which will be developed under this measure that sort of thing will not be allowed to happen again.


Gordon Graydon: Was that the only ground in each case?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, that was the only ground given in the report of the judge. I may add that was not the first complaint in that particular community, but it will not happen again.
With regard to the questions concerning this individual, Mr. Carr, I cannot give the answers to-day because I was not in the department; I was not the minister when he was naturalized, and I have not the information. However, I shall make inquiries, and to the extent that I can find the answers I shall give them to the hon. gentleman at the first opportunity.


Thomas Reid: I should like to direct a question to the minister in regard to section 10 (1) (a). Perhaps if I read it in layman's language I may give it a clearer interpretation than it is given in the bill itself. I read it in this way: "The minister may grant a certificate of Canadian citizenship to any person who is not a Canadian citizen, and who makes application for that purpose and satisfies the court that he has filed in the office of the clerk of the court for the judicial district in which he resides a declaration of intention to become a Canadian citizen not less than one or more than five years prior to the date of his application." My question to the minister is, does that debar a person who comes to this country from applying for citizenship six years, seven years or even ten years later? As I read this, it would seem that he must make his application or at least his declaration of intention between one and five years after coming to this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. The section means there cannot be a gap of more than five years between the time notice of intention is given and the application is made; and of course this provision does not apply to British subjects.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I have not participated in this debate to any extent, but have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments coming from both sides, particularly in reference to this section. ' I must say that I find myself largely in sympathy with the point of view expressed by hon. members to my right on this side of the house. I do not think they have been dealing with a matter of light significance. I am one of those who believe we should give serious consideration to the fact that we are common citizens of the British commonwealth of nations. I am bound to
say that in this bill I believe it should be possible for us to reconcile our two points of view. I believe in this bill we should recognize British citizenship as a whole because unless we recognize it, we will not preserve it. I am not going to repeat the arguments that have been advanced many times during this debate, because I do not intend to speak for very long, but those people for whom we are asking special consideration on a principle, the principle being our common citizenship in the British commonwealth, have some particular qualifications. First of all, they are British subjects and as such come here already as subjects of the king. Second, they have a knowledge of the workings of democracy under British institutions. Third, the great majority have a knowledge of one of the two official languages.
I listened with considerable interest to the objections raised by the Minister of Mines and Resources, as the one who has to administer the immigration laws of this country, and I quite appreciate his arguments and the force of his objections. But in an effort to reconcile the two points of view which I fully appreciate, I move the following amendment: That section 10 (1) (c) be amended by inserting after the word "application" in line 29 the following words: "except that in the case of a British subject, two years shall suffice."


Howard Charles Green: Are the ministers not going
to make any statement with regard to this amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Herridge) negatived.


William Ross Macdonald: Does section 10, subsection 1, carry?	/


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the
Secretary of State about three different points which arise in connection with this section. The first has to do with the wife of a Canadian, which is covered by paragraph (c) which states in part:
. . . where the applicant is the wife of and resides in Canada with a Canadian citizen . . .
Is that to be interpreted that unless and until that wife comes to Canada she cannot acquire Canadian citizenship?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: If a war bride from Holland comes to Canada after this bill becomes law, will it be necessary^ior her to appear in naturalization court?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not if she married before the bill came into effect.


Howard Charles Green: It is the time she is married that governs?
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: If she comes in before
the bill is in effect, she comes in under section 9 (c).


Howard Charles Green: But if she comes in after the bill comes into effect?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: She would have to appear in naturalization court?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Paragraph (e) reads:
(e) he has an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language, or, if he has not such adequate knowledge, he has resided continuously in Canada for more than twenty years.
Some suggestion was made during the debate that there should be an age limit in that paragraph, that it should apply, for example, to the person who was fifty years of age or over rather than to everyone. As I read this paragraph, a young man who comes here at the age of ten years could qualify at the age of thirty years under this twenty-year provision even though he could not then speak either English or French. I take it that the intention was to cover only those people who are now so old that it is difficult for them to learn one of the official languages. If that is the purpose of the section, would it not be wise to word it in that way?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has
referred to the case of a boy who comes to Canada at the age of ten years and then applies twenty years later at the age of thirty. In the first place, the subsection is purely permissive; it does not state that a certificate must be granted to such a person. A discretion is maintained. As I said the other day, I was much impressed with the number of cases that had come to my attention. One notable one which I mentioned was that of a woman, over fifty years of age it is true, who came here from Europe. She had a number of children, all of them a credit to this country and to her. Two of those children fought with the armed services, one son being killed at Dieppe and the other being awarded the D.F.C. She had been turned down for citizenship and I had no answer to give that woman. That was one reason why, when I collaborated with my officers and with others, I thought this kind of section should go in. Many hon. members from all sides of the house, particularly those from the western provinces, have told me of like cases.
It is not possible to envisage every case and there might be one such as the hon. gentleman mentioned. But I think in that

case the judge and the minister, exercising the discretion that is permitted to them, would be on their guard about admitting to citizenship someone who had spent twenty years in this country, after having entered at the age of ten years, without having learned one of the official languages. I hope there will be no more wars, and so does the hon. gentleman, but I do not think any minister administering this measure should be put in the position of receiving requests such as the one I have mentioned and not being able to accede to it. I think the case to which my hon. friend refers is one that is unlikely to come up. Surely it is not conceivable that a boy would come to this country at the age of ten years and then twenty years theerafter not have an adequate knowledge within the meaning of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: As the subsection reads it will apply to any one who comes here in the future?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: He may come next year, stay here for twenty years, not learn either English or French, and then apply for naturalization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: That is the effect of this subsection? *


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the effect.


Howard Charles Green: My final question has to do with the subject of an enemy state, for example, subjects of Germany or Japan. I see nothing in the bill referring to such people and apparently they are to be treated in the same way as people coming from any other part of the world. As the minister knows, after the last war special provision was made for the subjects of enemy countries


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member mind waiting until we come to section 21 before discussing that?


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to put something in the bill to cover that matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That question properly should be asked under section 21.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2-Special certificate to minor children.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to propose an
amendment which I will ask my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs to move. The amendment reads as follows:
That section 10 be amended.
1.	By inserting a new subsection (2), as follows :

Canadian Citizenship
"(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 ease 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).
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."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I so move.


Mr. BRACKEN:: I understand that the minister proposed this amendment as a result of the discussion this afternoon and earlier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can say that the discussion from all sides has been very helpful, but I might add that for some time we have had the matter in mind but did not know exactly what should be done until we had heard the discussion in the house.


John Bracken: That is not the point I wished to make. It is this, that while a few members of the house, my own supporters, have seen and, I understand, approved this amendment, I would respectfully suggest to the minister that since all the members of the house have not seen it and since the amendment is long and complicated it might be left over for consideration to-morrow when all hon. members will be able to see it in Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With that understanding we shall let the section stand and come back to it.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask one question with regard to this amendment? As I understand it, its purpose is to meet our objection that the British subject should not be required to appear in a naturalization court. This amendment provides that a certificate shall be granted to him without that appearance except in the rare case where there is some doubt whether he meets the requirements of the bill, in which rare case the minister will ask that he go before a naturalization court. Is
it or is it not the intention of the government that the great majority of cases will be covered by this amendment and that the great majority of British subjects applying for Canadian citizenship will not have to appear in a naturalization court?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman in the last sentence is quite correct. It will be only in very rare special instances that that will be required. The amendment came into being as a result not only of suggestions made from all sides of the house but following consideration by officials of my own department and myself, who have been giving these matters a good deal of thought for the last seven months. My hon. friend has made some valuable contributions; as has also the hon. member for New Westminster who has had some intimate discussion with (me on this matter, also the hon. member for Spadina. Every member has been very helpful, as I feel we all must be in this matter, and we are only too glad to get the opinions of all hon. members.


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad that the
minister has made the change.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Before we proceed to section 11, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to propose as subsection 6 of section 10 and I think I should put it before the minister and the committee now in order that consideration may be given to it before the entire section comes before the committee to-morrow, so that the minister will be in a position to decide whether he will be prepared to accept it.
This proposed amendment arises out of certain remarks which have been made by myself and by other members of the house from time to time regarding the necessity of assuring that a certificate of citizenship should carry with it certain inalienable rights.
Under section 10(1) (f) a step Las been taken in the right direction whereby the minister intends to ensure that an adequate knowledge of the responsibility and privileges of Canadian citizenship shall be conveyed to applicants for citizenship. I do not intend to go into details in that regard, but the system adopted in the United States of America is such that I am sure that, subject to the necessary changes, it could be incorporated into our regulations here, namely, the adoption of a text-book on citizenship and the setting up of schools for citizenship to the end that our citizens may have a greater appreciation and knowledge of wdiat citizenship actually means, for only in recent weeks the Gallup polls have demonstrated

Canadian Citizenship

that Canadian citizens in too many cases have little knowledge and appreciation of our system of government, or of those who govern us and of our constitution.
The subsection I propose is designed to provide that the citizen to be shall receive an adequate knowledge of the privileges of citizenship. When I spoke on April 2, following the speech of the minister, I said, as reported at page 513 of Hansard, and I ask the indulgence of the committee in referring to what I then said:
Having established the basis of Canadian citizenship and having given a new unity to this country, I suggest that citizenship, if it is to mean what our citizenship does mean, requires that at this time-I referred to this incidentally the other day-we should consider the adoption by Canada of a Bill of Rights.
May I say that my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North introduced a resolution in the house which did not arrive. I think, at the point where it was discussed.


Mr. STEWART:: I dropped it.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I went on to say:
There have been recent infringements upon citizenship by this government which have been a denial of the heritage that is ours.
I pointed out a little later:
The British North America Act contains no personal safeguards against unwise or discriminatory legislation that might be passed by federal governments.
Great Britain has a Bill of Rights, and has had one for generations. I have before me "Selected Documents of English Constitutional History", wherein are set forth the rights that are inalienable under British citizenship; the first is the Petition of Right of 1628; the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, and the Bill of Rights itself of 1689. All these acts setting forth the rights of British citizenship are part of the law of Britain and, as such, signify and set forth the rights of British citizens. The United States of America has a Bill of Rights, although it is not incorporated in the original constitution. Their Bill of Rights was passed in 1791 by way of amendments to the constitution.
I suggest this, that if citizenship is to mean what wre hope it will mean, and what it does mean to us, freedom must flow from it. Freedom itself is immutable, although as conditions change ideas of freedom change. In this country-I am not at the moment raising an issue but am speaking in a spirit of cooperation-there has been continuing over a period of time since 1914 a series of gradual invasions and infringements of citizenship as epitomized in the Bill of Rights,

in habeas corpus, in the Petition of Right and of other rights that are traditional. In this country in recent months there have been invasions of the rights of Canadian citizens which do not require to be discussed at this time. I refrain from discussing them in detail, but these invasions must be guarded against for the future. There has been a trend against freedom for the individual, going back to 1914, when the War Measures Act was passed, which act remained unrepealed. I think the time has come for a declaration on the part of parliament that Canadians possess certain rights under their citizenship; that these rights should not be unfairly or unjustly interfered with, and that, above all, there shall be no suspension, abrogation or temporary diminution or removal of those rights excepting by parliament, to the end that Canadian citizenship will imply and will carry into actuality equality without regard to race, religion or colour. I suggest that Canadian citizenship can be assured of these freedoms and their maintenance only by the ' incorporation into this measure of certain inalienable rights which have characterized British citizenship throughout the generations.
Without going into further detail in that connection and threshing old straw, the words of my amendment will convey the ideas I have in mind, the rights which should be protected, the rights which, in my opinion, should not be alienated other than by parliament itself, and certainly not by the executive. I therefore move, sir-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member should give notice of the amendment, because there is one amendment now before the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By consent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He just wants to give it to us so that we can read it over.


John George Diefenbaker: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops:
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."


William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 10 stand?
Section stands.

Canadian Citizenship
On section 11-'Grant of certificate of citizenship in certain cases.


Howard Charles Green: In paragraph (c) of section 11 we find the word "alien." Apparently there is no definition of "alien" in the bill, although it is defined in our present Naturalization Act and in our Immigration Act as meaning a person who is not a British subject. Why is no definition of that word inserted in this bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason it was left out is that there is no doubt concerning the legal connotation of the word and it was felt unnecessary to define it. "Canadian citizen" and "British subject" are defined in this bill, and in the case of other parts of the commonwealth which are recognized in section 28 of this bill. All other persons are aliens; "British subjects" are characterized in sections 26 and 28; and it was felt that we should follow the practice of recent legislation, based particularly on the treatise on nationality by Professor Hudson, to which I referred. Other countries have no such provisions. But we wanted to single out "Canadian citizen" and "British subject", which are characterized.


Howard Charles Green: What is the definition of "British subject"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: A person who owes allegiance to a common king.
Mr. GREEN': That is not set out in the bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: But surely we know that. That is set out- in the proceedings of the imperial conferences of 1930 and 1937.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister by way of amplication tell us what sort of case is contemplated in section 11, subparagraph (b)?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. In the administration of the measure it has been found useful in cases of adoption of an alien child or a child of doubtful antecedents, and it really is a most essential clause. Adoption, as the hon. gentleman knows, cannot of itself confer national status. The consequence is that many families in Canada who have adopted children who happen to have been born in the United States or elsewhere found that the child when approaching maturity cannot, for example, obtain a schoolteacher's certificate, cannot enrol for certain professions, because the child cannot establish that he is a British subject. We have many such cases, and it is to deal with that kind of problem, which up to now we have been wholly unable to deal with, simply because we had no authority.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
63260-73J
On section 12-Certificate not effective till oath of allegiance taken.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain what the plan is with regard to the way in which the oath of allegiance is to be taken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is now talking about other than British subjects?


Howard Charles Green: Explain it for both British subjects and non-British subjects.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of British subjects there will be a regular form which contains at the bottom the words which appear in the second schedule of this bill, and they will simply sign their names underneath. In the case of others who will go before a judge, the intention is to have a ceremony. It will no.t be possible to maintain the ritual in all communities, because of considerations of the size of community and convenience and so on, but the ceremony as far as the oath is concerned will be somewhat as follows. Just before the applicants are presented with the certificate there will be an address, by the judge, we hope in most communities by the mayor, perhaps by visiting dignitaries of the various churches, and so on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A member of parliament?


Howard Charles Green: The Secretary of State?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Secretary of State has gone to a number of these, and proposes to go to others if he can. While the present Secretary' of State does not personally add very much to the proceedings, I think his office does.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Humility exalteth a
nation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just before the certificate
is presented they will be asked to rise, and the judge will administer the oath in a formal ceremony which we hope will be both impressive and memorable.


Howard Charles Green: A British subject can take
the oath before anyone empowered to administer an oath?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Thomas Reid: When applicants come beforethe various judges of the nine provinces, are they to be asked questions as to their knowledge of the responsibilities of citizenship and so on, and is it proposed to have the series of questions similar for the whole of Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. Up to now that has not been done. The hon. member for Lake Centre was speaking a while ago about a certain manual which we hope to get from)
Canadian Citizenship

certain educational institutions and which will set out in factual form certain well-known facts concerning Canadian life, and we shall have a series of questions prepared, which need not be exclusive but will be suggested to the person in charge of the ceremony. As the hon. member for Essex West said, Mrs. Hamilton of Windsor has written a wonderful textbook which will be widely used: throughout this province and in which there are certain questions that she puts in a hypothetical way. In answer to the hon. member for New Westminster I may say that, so far as we can, we shall formulate a series of uniform questions seeking to convey to the potential Canadian citizen facts which I am sure all of us regard as necessary in such an application.


John George Diefenbaker: With reference to section 12, in the case of an infant under fourteen years of age, is there any provision for its being required to take the oath of allegiance on reaching the age of twenty-one, where the father was naturalized?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, there is not. What is intended in the case of a child of fourteen who cannot take the oath is to have the schoolteacher in the particular community impress upon that child the nature of the obligation, and so on. That is all that is contemplated.


John George Diefenbaker: The child is automatically naturalized and becomes a Canadian citizen and remains such?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section	13-Certificate not to be
granted to persons under a disability.
Mr. McKAY:: How inclusive is the term "disability"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It means incapacity of a minor, lunatic or idiot. The hon. gentleman will recall perhaps that under the heading disability in the interpretation section of the old act women were included. Under this bill-and little reference has been made to the fact, although in .many commentaries on the bill in other countries, in journals on international law, much is made of it-we take the lead in giving to women the control of their national status. As I have said, at long last they are taken out of the disabled class as they should have been, and I am glad to make that statement to-night in the presence of the distinguished woman member of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 14-Rehearing.
Howard Charles Green: Is this a new clause?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. members who have compared this bill with the old act will note that there has been a considerable diminution in some of the discretionary powers given the Secretary of State. I felt as soon as I became Secretary of State that I was doing many things that I should not have the power to do, and I have reduced to a minimum the discretionary powers exercised heretofore by secretaries of state. This section is new and provides in subsection 2 that the minister, in a case where a certificate has been granted, may order a rehearing. The purpose is to enable a rehearing to be required in cases where we , are "not satisfied that the proceedings have been properly conducted, or when all the evidence has not been produced or examined, or where for any other reason another examination of the case seems desirable. Once the rehearing takes place, the decision will be final. It does not apply, of course, when the court has rejected the application but only in cases of approval, where the minister has occasion for doubt.
If the committee wishes other reasons I can give them because there have been instances where in one place on one occasion no fewer than twenty-two certificates were granted. If we had had this power, I suggest that no one in this house would have granted those certificates. It is felt that-there are cases where, because of lack of interest on the judge's part, the examination is so perfunctory that it cannot be said to have involved either a proper ceremony or the laying of a foundation for determining whether the application should be granted. The intention is to cover embarrassing situations that may develop.


Howard Charles Green: Is the judge given wider
discretion than he is under the present regulations? At the present time his powers are limited by regulation 16, which reads:
At the conclusion of the hearing of the application by the judge, the said judge shall endorse upon the .petition his decision in the case as to (a) residence qualification, (b) good character,
(c)	adequate know-ledge of English or French,
(d)	intention to reside in His Majesty's dominions and (e) no disability under section
2 (f) . . .
Which simply defines what is a disability. Judges have told me they are very much handicapped in putting in the report because their instructions are that they must report on nothing except these points I have read,
Canadian Citizenship
and they do not feel free to write out a general report. That perhaps should be the key point in deciding whether or not the applicant should receive citizenship. Is it the intention to give the judges wider discretion than at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What discretion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are going to put in the regulations a general clause providing that if the judge feels these do not cover the particular situation he is free to report on that situation as he sees fit; in other words, to give the department a true picture of what happens. There is a real handicap which we intend to remove.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-New application allowed.
John Ritchie MacNicol: If the application has been rejected by the court on a hearing or rehearing the applicant may make another application under section 10 of the bill after the expiration of a period of two years from the date of such rejection. If the application has been rejected for some major reason, is the applicant allowed to remain in the country for the two years?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. The fact that the
applicant is turned down does not mean that he has to leave the country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said, for some major reason.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It all depends. ' If it were disloyalty to the crown involving an act of treason that might be altogether different. The hon. member for Vegreville mentioned certain applicants who had been turned1 down because of certain obligations they owed. There is no way of dealing with such a case and the intention is to cover situations like that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-On acquisition of other nationality.
Howard Charles Green: The minister should explain this in detail. This is the only way in which a Canadian citizen who is natural-born can lose his citizenship, and apparently he can lose it only when he is outside Canada and acquires a nationality or citizenship of some other country. We should be very careful about a section of this type. Take, for example, the case of a Canadian-born Japanese who served in the Japanese forces against us. One such was one of the main torturers of Canadians in Hong Kong. As I read the section, that man
still retains his Canadian citizenship. There should be some way in which the citizenship could be taken away from a man like that, and I suggest to the minister that he give consideration to having a test as to whether or not the person has become disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty. Certainly a person wdio is born in Canada and who serves in an enemy force should lose his Canadian citizenship, and lose it fast. Yet under this section he does not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I point out to the hon. gentleman that what he says is substantially correct, except that he has not covered the question of dual nationality covered by section 17 to which we shall make reference when we come to it. Perhaps I should read this section again:
A Canadian citizen -who, when outside of Canada and not under a disability, by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.
In all of the nationality acts of the commonwealth this provision exists. Citizenship is derived from two classes of people: those who were natural-born and those who acquired citizenship through other than natural-born methods. In the case of a natural-born person citizenship is something which, if taken away, would easily lead to a condition of statelessness. I am not thinking particularly of the group of people to whom my hon. friend is referring, but one of the difficulties in the administration of nationality acts is the question of tiying to avoid statelessness. If you take away the citizenship of a natural-born person, unless he has another state to which he can go-I am not referring to the-cases my hon. friend had in mind, but to illustrate the principle-he has no place- to< which he can be deported. It is to avoid that kind of situation that you have to tread with great care.


Thomas Reid: Would the minister mind
answering a question? What would happen in the case of a man who had two citizenships and you took away his Canadian citizenship? Would he be stateless?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It all depends on the circumstances. If by some voluntary act the man acquires the nationality of another country, then of course the consequences are as stated in the section. I am not admitting that it is not without difficulty, but the committee vtdil recall what we are trying to do. Here we are dealing with natural-born people who have no other nationality. If you take away their nationality they have no other country to which they owe allegiance.
Canadian Citizenship


Howard Charles Green: You do that under section 21.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a different situation. These are not natural-born people. This deals with natural-born citizens. The way to deal with the case to which my hon. friend has referred is through the courts of justice. They should be dealt with vigorously in that way. That is the proper way to do it. I am not saying this to be flippant, and I ara sure my hon. friend will recognize that. That is the British way. Everyone in this committee will recall the ca!se which came up in Great Britain recently of a certain person-I do not want to identify him. He was the son of a well-known public figure who had committed a serious crime against the crown. That person was a natural-born citizen of the United .Kingdom. His citizenship was not taken away from him in spite of his act; but he was dealt with effectively and completely by the courts. That is the only way, in my opinion, to deal with this matter. I do not know of any other way. We have thought of this problem and given it a great deal of attention. We 'talked about the very situation that my hon. friend has in mind and argued about it. We discussed this matter in relation to the nationality laws of the commonwealth. I think in only two countries of the world will it be found that there is a provision by which the citizenship of natural-born people can ibe taken away from them.


Howard Charles Green: The United States do it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, they do not do it. They do it in one small country; I think it is San Salvador.


John Thomas Hackett: Does any country do it when the citizen is in his own country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, except the two countries I have in mind.


John Thomas Hackett: Do they take the man's citizenship from him when he is in the country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; only when he is out.


Thomas Reid: I wonder whether the minister is correct. I hold in my hand a section of the United States act entitled, "Chapter IV, loss of nationality." Section 401 reads:
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization shall lose his nationality . . .
Then there is a whole page in which reasons for loss of nationality are outlined, whether Born in the United States or not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What are the reasons?
{Mr. Martin.]


Thomas Reid: One is voting at a political election in this country. If he does that they take away his citizenship and forbid him to enter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We do the same thing under section 16 which reads:
A Canadian citizen who. when outside of Canada and not under a disability, by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.


Thomas Reid: That is not a natural-born person.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Outside of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: This section refers to Canadian-born persons outside of Canada. Surely the minister does not contend that a Canadian-born person who serves in the army of our enemy should retain his citizenship?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a case of treason on a par with the case I referred to in England.


Howard Charles Green: Here is a man who served in the Japanese army.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He may have acquired foreign nationality.


Howard Charles Green: Why should he have any right to retain Canadian citizenship?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because there is an effective way of dealing with such natural-born people, the way they do it in Great Britain. The hon. gentleman will recall the case to which I refer. The question was put to the Home Secretary in the British house. I wish I had his reply here. I should have brought it down. Recognizing the difficulty, he said in substance that the main purpose of the provision was to avoid the danger of people becoming stateless. If a Canadian citizen or a natural-born Canadian citizen does something along the lines referred to by my hon. friend it seems to me the effective way to deal with the situation is to bring him before the courts, and, if he is found guilty, give him the justice and ignominy which he deserves. That is the British system and I think it is the system we must follow.


Howard Charles Green: What about Canadian-born persons who go to Japan in peace time and take military training in the Japanese army? Hundreds of them did that, and then applied to come back to Canada as British subjects. What happens in cases like that? I want an answer to my question.

Canadian Citizenship


Angus MacInnis: I can add a little to the discussion and the minister can gh^e his answer then. If a Canadian citizen helps a foreign enemy, it does not make any difference if he does it in this country or outside, he has committed treason, and if he is in this country the law of the land applies to him. If he is out of the country, the moment he returns the law of the land applies to him as well. Surely we should not do things on a racial basis just because a person happens to do a certain thing in one country. There is a law to apply in this case, and if we apply the law rigidly, fairly and justly in every case we shall take care of every case. Therefore, in my opinion, the points raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South do not really exist as difficult points. They are questions of application of the, law, as the law stands; and if we apply the law, then the situation is met.


Thomas Reid: Of course many of us differ with the views of the last speaker-[DOT]


Angus MacInnis: All right; you also differ with the views of the Secretary of State.


Thomas Reid: All the hon. gentleman says may be true, but we are speaking now particularly of persons in this country, whether Japanese or others, who are sitting here holding two citizenships. My whole public fight has been against this. I realize that a child has no control over what its parents may do, but I say when that child reaches the age of twenty-one years, if he is a registered citizen of Japan and looked upon by that country as a citizen, then that person should take some steps to renounce his foreign allegiance, if he really is a Canadian and has been bom in this country. Our anxiety under the bill is this. Many Japanese have left this country and then returned making no bones about where their loyalty and their support lie.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that person a natural-born Canadian?


Thomas Reid: Yes; I am speaking about a natural-born Canadian. I have here a return brought down in this house concerning one man, and this is not an isolated case. It deals with one Noboru Yamamoto, who was born in this country, who then spent fifteen years in Japan and finally returned to this country while we were at war. When the war was at its toughest he was asked by this government to do some work. He refused, and his letter to the Minister of Labour was most astounding. I am going to read it; it is dated May 22, 1944:
To the Honourable the Minister of Labour:
I am sorry to interrupt your precious time for stating my concerns-
I am reading this letter just as it was written.
-but I think you will be kind enough to listen and judge to what I state under the following order.
Norv I am already 21 years old. Speaking from this standpoint I must be working or otherwise, be serving in the armed forces in this country, however, as I came here from Japan just before the war, 1940, after being educated 11 years school course there; I have no desire to be working for this country especially in this war time because such work would be considered as though I were helping this country to win the war against Japan.
I feel very sorry to Japan if I do work, as you might have been already noted that the Japanese have very strong patriotism to their mothers country, especially in the war time; they are willing to offer everything that they have to their country even their life if they asked to do so.
There is no exception in my case to this conclusion particularly as I have been under the military training while in the school course there.
I know that there is left only two ways by which I can keep my living in this country. The first and best thing is to keep my studying until the end of the war. By doing so, I would neither hurt Canada nor Japan. The next thing is to be interned or imprisoned until the eim of the war however this would hurt Canada.
Although I have no intention to hurt this country, there is no alternative course left for me. but to be interned or imprisoned if the selective service or commission (B.C. security commission) would force me to work.
I here professed my suggestion so that there will be left nothing indefinite between us.
Will you be kind enough to tell me if there is left any chance by which I could keep my study in the east? I hope to receive your answer as early as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What happened to him?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: He was not shot, anyway.


Thomas Reid: I really cannot tell the hon. member what happened. I do not think anything very startling happened to him, but he kept on writing letters to Ottawa. I notice that in one letter to the selective service authorities he says, "I also have stated my reason fully to the general Spanish consul." Here was a man born in this country, and he is only one of many. At his birth he was registered in Japan; his parents saw to that. Then he and others went to that country, to which they owed allegiance. There they are registered as Japanese nationals and Japanese citizens, and the government of Japan intimated that it would do its utmost to protect them in this country. Then he comes back, and this is the kind of letter he writes to the minister.

Canadian Citizenship
We who have been taking this stand realize that it is particularly directed against the Japanese, but I do not know of any other race of people who are sitting in this country holding two citizenships. I have challenged all those who have come out in opposition to my views in regard to this matter. Last year the Japanese newspaper printed the remarks I made in this house; they made the statement, "Mr. Reid says we have dual citizenship and are non-assimilable", but they did not attempt to contradict my statement. Why? Not one of the 22,000 Japanese has said, "We have nothing to do with Japan. I am a Canadian citizen." Many of us who have carried on this fight all the way through have been unjustly accused of having an attitude of racial hatred, but we have simply taken the stand that no person in this country should be allowed to possess Canadian citizenship if he holds allegiance to some other country, be it Japan or any other. That is our fight, and in this bill we want to see something done about that class of citizen, whether he comes from Japan, Yugoslavia, Russia, Germany or any other country.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Howard Charles Green: The minister has not
answered my question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case to which the hon. gentleman has referred, that young man went back and took military service under the government of Japan.


Howard Charles Green: In peace time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. If, by doing so, he acquired Japanese nationality, under this section he is out.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be wise to put that right in our bill, that if a man serves in the armed forces of any other country he loses his Canadian citizenship? What is the objection to putting that in the section?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You cannot cover cases like that. It would include service, for instance, in the forces of the United States and other countries. If you start to draw lines in that way you get into tremendous difficulties. In that case, if by going to Japan and serving in the military forces of the Japanese government that man thereby acquired Japanese nationality, he ceases to be a Canadian citizen.


James Sinclair: Just to follow that thought, section 401 of the United States act, which the hon. member for New Westminster is talking about, expressly states that American citizens who 	[
serve in the armies of foreign countries are going to lose their American citizenship, whether they are natural-born or naturalized.
A little further down they have another interesting provision, that any man who deserts the military or naval service of the United States in time of war shall also lose his American citizenship, something which certainly should be in our bill. Then the hon. member for Vancouver East suggested that if a man served in the Japanese military forces he should be tried as a traitor if he returned to Canada. But these Japanese, with dual citizenship, cannot be loyal to both Canada and Japan when the two countries are at war. How could you legally try a man who has dual citizenship for being disloyal to either country when at the same time he was loyal to the other? That is the whole nub of the case of the British Columbia members, other than the C.C.F. members, against the Japanese. They are dual citizens; they are not, cannot be and do not want to be Canadians.


Angus MacInnis: But that is not the case. Japanese Canadians by the hundred wanted to demonstrate their citizenship by service in the Canadian army, and they were not allowed to do so until Great Britain made application for their services. That application was turned down but later it was accepted, under some compulsion or another.


James Sinclair: Nonsense.


Angus MacInnis: The way to allow people to show their citizenship is first to give them full citizenship and then let them discharge all the duties and obligations that go with it.


James Sinclair: To both countries?


Angus MacInnis: No. The statement was made by the hon. member for New Westminster that all the 22,000 Canadian-born persons of Japanese origin in Canada had dual citizenship. I say that that is not correct. I know of dozens of them who revoked their citizenship in Japan, or it was done by their parents. They were given no encouragement to do that. As some one has said, the nub of the question is their loyalty, and the nub of their loyalty is their willingness to serve in the Canadian armed forces. They served in the armed forces of the United States, 'and their record in Italy is that their section of the army was the most decorated section in the United States army. There is no doubt that if they had been given the * same opportunity to serve in the Canadian
Canadian Citizenship
army they would have given the same service. Before we ask for loyalty we must provide opportunity.


Thomas Reid: That may be so far as it goes, but the fact still remains that the Japanese 1 bom in this country whose births were registered in Japan and who are now twenty-one years of age have a dual citizenship. Japan looks upon them as citizens of Japan. They are so much under the control of Japan that even when they die in this country both their birth and death certificates must be sent to Japan.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: And their ashes as well.
Mr. MaeINNIS: That is true of other orientals.


Thomas Reid: Japan recognizes these people and that is why so many of them went back to do military duty there. To the best of my knowledge, 1,600 of them left just prior to 1939. They were born here and they went to Japan to serve in the army. They can now come back to this country and say, "We are Canadian citizens." There is no law such as has been spoken of by the hon. member for Vancouver East that would touch them. I do not know of any law that can touch them. Should we open the door to those 1,600 who went to Japan to do military duty and then stayed there at the request of Japan? Should they be allowed to come back to this country and claim Canadian citizenship?
Mr. MaeINNIS: Surely if the Canadian government has information that 1,600 persons born of Japanese parents in Canada went to Japan and served in the Japanese army, when those 1,600 return to Canada they can be picked up as having been disloyal to Canada and punished according to Canadian law.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How can they?
Mr. MaeINNIS: You know the crime they committed, or whatever you may call it. I do not know why you could not do that. Take the case mentioned by the Secretary of State that occurred in Great Britain. That case had to do with Germany.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He was not a citizen of Germany.
Mr. MaeINNIS: It is true he was a citizen of Great Britain, but the claim is that these persons are also citizens of Canada. We are dealing with them not because they are citizens of Japan but because they are citizens of Canada. We can do the same thing as was done by the British government in connection with that case.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How are we to tell which are Canadian citizens and which are not? Will the hon. member state what allegiance is owed by the two Japanese who were in the galleries and who must have been introduced there by members of only one party?


An hon. MEMBER:: Were they in the government gallery?


George Alexander Cruickshank: They were in the members' gallery and no Liberal or Conservative brought them in.
Mr. MaeINNIS: As the members' gallery we would put them in is on that side of the chamber, the hon. member will have to ask his hon. friends on his side of the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No hon. member on this side brought them in. I have my own ideas as to who entertained them at lunch and who brought them in here.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I respectfully suggest that we are getting away from the subject.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, we are not.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: This debate seems to have developed into another debate on the Japanese question. I heard enough of that during the last session and I do not want to hear any more.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You know nothing about it.
Mr. MaeINNIS: There are two who do not know anything about it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You should know it all because you have dealt with them long enough.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Certainly I know it all.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think we as Canadians should accept responsibility for the bringing up of our own Canadian-born citizens. That is why I referred to the case raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South. He was not in the house when I spoke, as reported on page 1001 of Hansard. If we bring boys up in this country after .having accepted their parents, if we put them through our schools then I am afraid we shall have to accept responsibility, and if they get into trouble we shall have to punish them as Canadians. We cannot dodge our responsibility by saying to a young German or a young Czech or a young Englishman or a young what have you, "We do not want you; we have brought you up in this country; we gave you your education, but we do not like you and you
Canadian Citizenship

will have to go back to France, to Japan, to Germany or somewhere else." I am afraid we shall have to accept that responsibility. If these people commit crimes they will have to be punished as Canadian citizens. We cannot deprive them of their only nationality because there is no other country prepared to take these criminals. We must deal with them ourselves. I hope hon. members do not think I am talking about the Japanese because I am not. They are quite far from my thoughts at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With due respect to all hon. members I think we should try to discuss this matter without heat. I have asked con-tinuallj' that the members from British Columbia be given a fair opportunity to state their case against the Japanese in order that this parliament of Canada may decide the matter on principles of justice. There is this distinction to be drawn between the Japanese referred to by the hon. member for New Westminster and by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the case referred to by the Secretary of State. I think 1,600 was the figure given by the hon. member for New Westminster. Those persons acquired Japanese nationality by virtue of the registration of their births in Canada. Therefore I think they are in a different category; from their point of view they were citizens of Japan.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Are they not citizens of Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: These people are not desirable Canadian citizens because, according to their own light, they are Japanese citizens. Later, when section 17 is being considered, I shall have something more to say. However, I just wanted to draw a distinction between these cases, because in my submission these people in their own minds are not Canadians; they are Japanese and they should be so regarded and so treated.


William Alexander McMaster: I thought the debate on this particular phase of the matter had ended. If it has not, perhaps my remarks should be left until it has. However, since I am on my feet perhaps I might offer a suggestion about this clause which is general in its application. The Secretary of State has referred to stateless persons; but I have always thought that no one could be stateless, that is, that domicile or nationality is something that is cast upon a person by his birth. If you drive him out of one state and he is not a subject of another state, by international law,

which says that a man comes back to his original domicile or original state, he immediately bounces back.


Howard Charles Green: It is quite amusing, but not very helpful, to hear the hon. member for Saskatoon City talk about welcoming back these Japanese. His province has been quite successful in keeping away from having many Japanese settle in its territory. They are really not in a very good position to talk about the Japanese question.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Did the hon. gentleman say that I had welcomed back the Japanese?


Howard Charles Green: He is suggesting that this Japanese torturer should be brought back to Canada and tried.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The hon. gentleman should withdraw what he has said because I said no such thing.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Your province did.


Howard Charles Green: That was the inference.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Will the hon. gentleman withdraw that?


Howard Charles Green: No; I will not withdraw it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I appeal to the Chair. The hon. member has said that I said something which I did not say.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He said your
province said it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I appeal to the chair.


George Russell Boucher: Let the record speak.


William Henry Golding: I must confess that I did not hear what the hon. member said.


Howard Charles Green: I forget what I said myself. However, as I understood the suggestion of the hon. member it was that cases such as this torturer should be brought back to Canada to be tried; that he should be brought back to Canada to be tried and any other Japanese who served in the Japanese forces should be brought back here and we should accept the blame for them being as they are. That is what I understood from his remarks and I think that is what he meant. I suggest to the minister that he allow this section to stand with section 10, because I think that in bringing in a section of this type the minister is not facing realities. This question must be faced. This question of dual nationality cannot be sidetracked. We must be protected against happenings such as have taken place during the last few years.

Canadian Citizenship
There is no provision in this section for a man renouncing his Canadian citizenship; he cannot renounce his Canadian citizenship. There are cases where a person in Canada may wish to renounce his citizenship and certainly should be allowed to do so, but there is no provision for that.
I repeat again that a Canadian-born person who serves in the armed forces of any other nation should lose his citizenship by so doing. Let us not be carried away and be too free in giving our right of citizenship. We must be careful to draw the line somewhere. People who serve in the armed forces of another country are not entitled to retain their Canadian citizenship. I would ask the minister to let this section stand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest that we let section 17 stand, that is the section which concerns dual nationality; and let section 16 pass.


Howard Charles Green: Section 16 also concerns dual nationality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Howard Charles Green: Oh yes, it does, and it concerns this question of serving in the armed forces of another nation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 17 is the one, if my hon. friend will look at it carefully.


Thomas Reid: I think section 17 covers that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no doubt of that, and I am willing to let section 17 stand if we can pass section 16.


Howard Charles Green: Section 17 applies only to a minor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 17 applies to a man of the full age of twenty-one years.


Howard Charles Green: Section 17 applies only to a person who during his minority becomes a citizen of another country, and section 16 applies to a person who has attained his majority and goes abroad.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he acquires another nationality after his majority he loses his Canadian citizenship under section 16. Section 17 is the one.


Howard Charles Green: No; section 17 applies only where he gets dual nationality as a minor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A person under this bill cannot get dual nationality until after attaining his majority. You have to elect under this bill.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that the two sections are tied up together and that both should be allowed to stand for further consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am prepared to let section 17 stand, but I do not think section 16 applies to the problem.


Howard Charles Green: The minister should not try to force through section 16 without giving further consideration to the suggestions that have been made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have given very full consideration to section 16. I am prepared to let section 17 stand. I am satisfied beyond any doubt that section 17 applies and I am prepared to give further consideration to it. I shall have to consider what should be done in the case of persons who serve in the armed forces of another country when Canada is at war. I do not think section 17 covers the point my hon. friend has in mind. If we let section 17 stand, before I undertake to say what I shall do about it, I would want to say something after we pass section 16.


Howard Charles Green: One question that arises
under section 16 is the right of a person in Canada to renounce his citizenship. There is no provision in this bill for the renouncing of citizenship, and there should be.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is dealt with in section 16.


Howard Charles Green: That only concerns a person outside of Canada,


Paul Joseph James Martin: The persons the hon. member is talking about are outside of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: There should be a provision whereby a person within Canada can renounce his citizenship.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot agree to that.


Howard Charles Green: There is a provision of that kind in the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That does not make it
right. I know that the United States has such a provision, but you will not find that provision in any country in the British commonwealth. The United States have had. considerable difficulty with this whole question of rpen serving in the armed forces of another country. As I told the house the other night we have had discussions with United States officials and authorities on this very subject both here in Ottawa and elsewhere, discussions in which I along with some of my officials participated. As a member of the government I naturally hesitate to say certain things in public, but I will go this far and say that the United States have had very considerable difficulty with this provision. For instance,
Canadian Citizenship

Americans served in the armed, forces of Canada and that has placed United States citizens in an extremely difficult position. I do not want to go too far on that. Perhaps the committee will understand to what I refer. Numbers of Americans did serve in the armed forces of Canada.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May
I ask what happened to Canadian citizens who served in the Spanish republican army in 1936?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not really know, I
shall have to give an answer to-morrow.


James Sinclair: Is
the minister aware that United States citizens who served in the R.C.A.F. did not take the oath of allegiance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, because special action was taken in that case. I have to be careful in commenting on difficulties other countries have had. They have had to use other methods. I should like to be able to say exactly what they have told us about their difficulties in the United States. They had difficulties not only in the last war but in the first great war because certain countries which fought against the United States this time were their allies last time. That createsi all sorts of difficulties, and one has to be extremely careful.
In Australia-we have been in touch with Australia-they have had the same problem and they are dealing with this problem as I think we should deal with it, in the British way. Take the case of Captain Baillie Stewart. He was ' a citizen of Great Britain and was convicted of aiding a foreign power, was discharged from the British army and imprisoned. Later he went to Germany. Nothing further was done until he was recaptured after the war. Then he was tried and convicted of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Was it proven or alleged
that he had acquired German citizenship or nationality?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I really do not know.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is an important question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is in one sense, but not as far as the principle is concerned. In other words, Britain regards citizenship once obtained through natural-born process as a thing which can be dealt with in the case of disloyalty in 
the most effective and the most humiliating way possible, and that is by disposition at the hands of the courts.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the minister permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He mentioned the fact that Britain considers that of the utmost importance. Has he any reason to believe that Japan does not also consider it of the utmost importance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may say in answer to that that my hon. friend knows that we are not, or certainly I hope we are not, to be governed in this parliament or this country by the methods-the diabolical methods-of our enemies.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, no, that is no answer at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I asked that question because I have been informed that, in the hearing of the case, it was held that Baillie Stewart had not completed the formalities of acquiring German citizenship and nationality, and it was for that reason that he was dealt with as a British subject and a traitor to Great Britain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the case of
"Lord Haw-Haw"? There have been many others, and Britain has dealt with them in the effective way I mentioned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We should look up the record, but I think that "Haw-Haw", or William Joyce, was dealt with on the same basis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are quite right. I am wrong in that case. "Lord Haw-Haw" was declared to be a United States citizen. I suggest that we let section 16 pass, and I will hold section 17 over and give it consideration.


Howard Charles Green: What about section 16?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think we should allow section 16 to pass. I do not think it covers the issue.	>


Howard Charles Green: In the ordinary course, in this house, where the suggestion is made in good faith that a section stand over, the practice is for the government to let it stand over and not try to force it through.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will agree to let them both stand over, so that we can get on. I know that from now on I can expect complete cooperation.
Canadian Citizenship


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister at the session last fall made a statement outlining the policy of the government on this Japanese question. Will the minister assure the committee that if this bill becomes law it will in no way affect the carrying out of that policy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say is that this bill has nothing to do one way or the other with these orders. The responsible minister in connection with that matter will have to answer on behalf of the government. I am not particularly charged with that matter, but this bill does not affect one way or the other that situation. This bill stands by itself.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has not given the assurance for which I asked. Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is leading the house at the moment, give that assurance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My understanding is
that the measure now being considered by this committee will not and cannot alter in any way the policy of the government with respect to the issue raised by my hon. friend.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill was introduced long before these orders were passed.


An hon. MEMBER:: In that case it will have been passed after the event.


Angus MacInnis: In view of certain matters which were raised in connection with this bill, the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South is certainly a most amazing one. The hon. member for Lake Centre attacked and slashed the government in a really fine way over certain orders in council by which a few individuals were picked up and confined and later brought to trial, and then over one case of a man who had deserted from the Canadian army, where there was an order passed getting him under control. I imagine that the hon. member for Lake Centre was talking for the Progressive Conservative party when he denounced-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the hon. member forgive me for rising on a point of order. I understand that the minister in charge agreed, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South, to have sections 16 and 17 stand over for further discussion. So that I think we might possibly postpone the discussion of this issue to another occasion.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think it is quite fair to ask me to postpone my discussion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We could not hope for it.


Angus MacInnis: I listened to the hon. member for Lake Centre dealing with one question, and to the hon. members for Vancouver South, Kamloops, Vancouver-Burrard and Nanaimo dealing with a definitely opposite principle. One of these principles is right. Either orders in council which take away the liberty of the Canadian citizen are wrong, or orders in council which take away the freedom of Canadian citizens are right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he define the difference between these principles?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I think there was agreement that sections 16 and 17 would stand for further consideration.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I object to that ruling, although I bow to it. The point I made is this. If I am wrong, then the hon. member for Vancouver South should not be allowed to ask his questions. As a matter of fact, for days and days the whole discussion on this point was out of order, because it had nothing to do with the question. I was anticipating that, the moment I would rise to speak on it, I would say things and then I would be out of order. So it has turned out. But before this is finished I am going to have my say on this question, and I am going to show the contradictions in the policies of my hon. friends to my right.


Gordon Graydon: Meanwhile you are
wasting a lot of time.


Angus MacInnis: I am not wasting any time. I do not waste any time.
Sections 16 and 17 stand.
On section 18-Child of parent ceasing to be a Canadian citizen. Declaration for resuming Canadian citizenship.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain this section?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not new; it has been in the act for thirty-one years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-When loss of Canadian citizenship involves loss of British nationality.
Thomas Reid: May I ask the minister if we have the right to declare that a person "thereupon ceases to be a British subject"? The minister might explain that. Have we the right to take away the status of a British subject if a person takes out foreign citizen-

Canadian Citizenship
ship? Under this section, if a person takes out foreign citizenship we assume the right to declare that he is not a British subject.


Mr. CASE:: We cannot do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These people acquire Canadian citizenship under Canadian law. Of course we have the power. They have the status of a British subject. But if they become nationals of another country-


An hon. MEMBER:: British subjects?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. Australia has acted thus and South Africa has done so. There is no doubt about that. They are British subjects by virtue of naturalization in Canada.


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: Did I understand the Secretary of State to say that we had the right to take away British citizenship? I believe we have no power to do so. This is absolutely unconstitutional. We cannot invade the field of legislating as to the citizenship of another country. At least I do not know how that can be done. Besides this, I would ask another question: if a person ceases to be a British subject, does he cease to be a Canadian citizen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt about the first question. I did not hear the hon. member's second question.


Maxime Raymond: I wish to know if a person ceases to be a British citizen if he ceases to be a Canadian citizen?


John Thomas Hackett: British subject.


Maxime Raymond: Yes, British subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he is a Canadian citizen. A person who lives in South Africa would cease to be a British subject if he goes to live, let us say, in Yugoslavia as a citizen of that country.


Maxime Raymond: I understand section 19 provides that when a person ceases to be a Canadian citizen he thereupon ceases to be a British subject. Is it reciprocal? If a person ceases to be a British subject, does he cease to be a Canadian citizen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he is a Canadian citizen, certainly. The two are joined together.


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauhamois-Lapriarie):: I just want to remind the minister of a discussion which took place in 1921 on the subject of Canadian nationality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All Canadian citizens are British subjects. Surely that should help the hon. gentleman in understanding the nature of my reply.


Maxime Raymond: That means that we have dual nationality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it does not. It means that under this bill we are citizens of Canada, at the same time enjoying the common status of loyalty to a common king.


Thomas Reid: Suppose a man leaves some continental country, France we will say for the sake of argument, resides in Great Britain for a few years, becoming a British subject, then comes to this country and after five years takes out Canadian citizenship papers. Following that, he returns to the continental country and takes out papers there. I am questioning the right of this country to declare that he is not a British subject in view of the fact that he might have had that status in the first instance when he came to Canada.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I have listened to the minister's explanation and what I have in mind is this. A man comes as a British subject when he arrives and then becomes a Canadian citizen. If he renounces his Canadian citizenship, does the minister mean to say that we can declare that he is no longer a British subject?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The section says that where one ceases to be a Canadian citizen as provided in certain sections, if he is at such time or thereupon becomes a national or citizen of a country other than a country of the British commonwealth he thereby ceases to be a British subject. He does under this law, under the law of New Zealand, and of all the dominions. He joins another country. Should we allow him to continue to be a British subject?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-By residence outside of Canada for six years.
Howard Charles Green: Was consideration given to inserting a provision such as there is in the United States law to the effect that if a citizen other than a natural-born citizen returns to his country of origin and becomes domiciled there, the time of residence is only two years, or is a shorter time than if he goes to a third country? I have the report of Professor W. P. M. Kennedy, published in 1943.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may say that we have not adopted the suggestion.


Howard Charles Green: At page 18 the following remarks appear:
If after naturalization and the acquisition of Canadian domicile, they return to the country of their origin and remain there for two years,
Canadian Citizenship
this ought to be presumptive evidence that they have abandoned Canadian domicile, and such is in fact the law of the United States.
Has that been considered?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What are the reasons for not following it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: After canvassing the whole situation we thought six years was the proper time.	[DOT]


John Thomas Hackett: Must these six years be consecutive?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: They are not cumulative?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, they are consecutive.


John Thomas Hackett: Why, then, is that word not inserted? As it stands, it does not say so. As the section now reads, if the man were out of the country two years ten years ago-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no objection to saying six consecutive years.


John Thomas Hackett: I so move.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the Secretary of State explain what is contemplated in section 20, paragraph (e) ? I do not understand the purpose.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are not excluding a person if the wife goes and lives with her husband who is engaged in one of the privileged occupations, outside the country, enumerated from (a) to (f).


Edmund Davie Fulton: This contemplates the husband inasmuch as it says "he".


Paul Joseph James Martin: "He" under the interpretation act means he or she.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does it contemplate the case of a man married to a C.W.A.C.?


William Henry Golding: There is an amendment by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Haekett) that the word "consecutive" be added in line 12 after the word six. It would then read "at least six consecutive years".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 21-By revocation of Canadian citizenship.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I told the house that I intended to ask my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs to move that subsection 1 (c) be deleted and (d) and (e) be relettered (c) and (d).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I so move.


Thomas Reid: I wish to direct the attention of the committee to this point. There appears later on in the bill a provision that a Canadian subject naturalized has equal status with a natural-born citizen. Some time ago we were speaking about natural-born persons and the Japanese race was mentioned. My objection is that a naturalized citizen will lose his citizenship by the commission of certain acts, whereas the natural-born citizen will not, and I am propounding this question to the minister: How can we give like status to the naturalized citizen if we make a differentiation not. only in section 21 but in other sections?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The only answer is the sound principle that one is natural-born and has no country to go to while the other is a national of Canada who has had another national status to which he has apparently a greater national affinity. We can deal with his case more effectively than with that of the natural-bom person.


Thomas Reid: That answer is not satisfactory; at any rate it is not satisfactory to me, because the bill then is not sound. Later on, it says that the two of them have like status, but they have not and the country should be informed that they have not. We have been talking for weeks about citizenship, about everyone throwing racial pride to the winds, and all meeting on an equal plane, and now we are saying that if certain persons like myself do certain acts they lose their citizenship, whereas if the son of such a person, born in this country, does the same thing the case is different. There is no like status there and I call the attention of the committee to the fact. I suggest that this section should be held over for consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will agree to let section 16 and 17 stand because of the principle involved, but I do not think there is any necessity to have this one stand, with great respect to my hon. friend. He will find no country in the world where the suggestion he is now making is followed, except in the two I have mentioned.


Thomas Reid: Then section 27 is not true. There is no like status as between the two classes.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: (Mr. Golding): There is an amendment moved by Mr. Mackenzie that paragraph (c) of section 21 be deleted and the subsequent paragraphs be relettered accordingly.
Canadian Citizenship


Howard Charles Green: Earlier in the evening I asked the minister a question as to what was to be done in connection with nationals of an enemy country and he requested me to repeat the question on section 21. Will he give an answer now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing I can say on that. Perhaps I did not quite understand the question. It is obviously a matter for the courts if I understand what the hon. gentleman says.


Howard Charles Green: After the last war a special amendment was introduced into the Naturalization Act putting a restriction on applications for naturalization by subjects of enemy countries for a certain length of time-ten years, I believe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know.


Howard Charles Green: Subsequently, when that
period expired the provision was repealed. I can find nothing in this bill which deals with enemy nationals. Has the minister given consideration to inserting a provision of that kind? If not, why not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That provision was inserted and shortly after it was removed. It was felt to have no value. We shall have to deal with that situation when it arises.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean that a citizen of Germany has the same right of Canadian naturalization as a citizen of France?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he is a deserving person, certainly. If he is not, no. All I can say is there are many being turned down and many being granted because there are many good German citizens in this country. Professor Einstein in the United States is an illustration. We have to deal with these cases in an ad hoc manner, and we are dealing with them carefully.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to commend the amendment proposed by the minister. To say the least, I think it would1 have been a grave misfortune if this section had passed with paragraph (c) in it. I do not need to elaborate what I said about it the other day. Before we deal finally with the amendment, would the minister explain what meaning he attaches to certain words in paragraph (d) which, under the amendment, will be relettered paragraph (c) ?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could we deal with the amendment first?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My question has to do with paragraph (d) which is being relettered. If the Chairman would leave the question open I do not mind waiting.
[The Acting Chairman.]


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us deal with the
amendment first.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I do not like this section. I do not think there is any doubt that it is discriminatory.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My question has to do with the concluding words in paragraph (d). In the course of administration of this bill I should like to know what meaning the minister proposes to attach to these concluding words: "and has not maintained substantial connection with Canada." Take the case of a Canadian citizen who leaves this country and is absent for six years; let us say, he takes up ordinary residence outside Canada and has not maintained substantial connection here. What meaning is to be attached to these words? There is nothing in the bill that gives any clue to the meaning of them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that the section substantially means exactly what it says, and the courts will so interpret it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is not a court; this is the governor in council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will give the reason, and the courts may easily construe it in construing the action of the governor in council. First of all, the period has been reduced from seven years to six. In the existing act it is seven years. Since Canadian citizenship will hereafter give a right of entry, whereas status as a British subject does not at present, it was thought desirable to shorten the period that a person could be abroad. This provision is needed because there may be cases where revocation of naturalization is desirable even though a person is not subject to automatic loss. For example, a person may be abroad for years with a purely nominal agency from a Canadian company. This agency would protect him from automatic loss. However, if it were merely a deliberate blind or shield, it would be desirable to be able to revoke his naturalization if he has maintained no substantial connection with Canada.
We have had a number of cases of individuals who left Canada prior to the war and went to Germany. They were away beyond the prescribed period. These people alleged that they had connection with Canada and that they were acting for certain companies. We were able to find out that these companies were blinds, that they were just fictitious agencies. In fact they were not really employed by them at all. Certainly that is no
Canadian Citizenship
substantial connection with Canada, and it is hoped we shall be able to deal with that kind of case.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Suppose a man is not representing an agency, but some members of his family may be here. For reasons of health he may be compelled to take up residence abroad. Suppose a man goes to California and for reasons of health he takes up ordinary residence there and corresponds with his family. Would that be considered substantial connection?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt about
that. He could not have a more substantial connection than having a family in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Suppose he has no family?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He might have some other connection.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Suppose he has property. Suppose he is a former minister of the crown and is a bachelor?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a doubtful case.
Take a case of substance.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Would the minister explain exactly what is meant by what was subparagraph (e) of paragraph 1, of section 21, which reads as follows:
. . . has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I want to take the
committee into my confidence. When we came to deal with that paragraph it gave us a great deal of trouble. The hon. gentleman knows me well enough to know that I would not want to have any measure in the bill which could be unscrupulously used by an individual to deport an alleged undesirable person.


John Thomas Hackett: Is that the language of the subparagraph taken from the criminal code?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I do not wish to refer to existing cases, but there are many instances. I forget the exact number we had before the war, but there were Canadian citizens who went to Germany between 1934 and 1936, many of whom took part in. the activities of the German army. Others, if they did not take part, did other things which were obviously disloyal, and certainly could come within, the characterization of being by act or speech disloyal to the crown. We must have some provision to deal with these people. These people acquired naturalization. They were not natural-bom people. They came into this country and we took them for people who would give their loyalty to Canada. They did not. They being naturalized persons, we felt
that we should have the right to deal with such people' in this way. I am not denying that with people who have no responsibility this sort of thing could be open to abuse; but we have to trust whoever holds the office of Secretary of State, whoever serves in the government of this country, that they will not act lightly in a matter like this. That is the only effective reply I can give to the hon. gentleman, but it is a powerful reply. I do not think there has been any abuse of it, and I see no occasion to suspect that there will be.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am quite willing to accept the Secretary of State's word that he would not abuse it. I believe that implicitly, but there may be other secretaries of state following him. To some extent it has been abused in the past. I remember the history of the 1919 strike when undoubtedly men who afterwards achieved eminence of position in legislatures were arrested and virtually charged with treason and sedition. The founder of this political party, of which I am a member was arrested and incarcerated for four days, I think, because he quoted Isaiah in the streets of Winnipeg. We are not always going to get men in the position of the Secretary of State who are liberals in the best sense of the word. To my mind this section gives undue power to a minister, and I do not like to see that no matter how good the minister may be. I should like to move in amendment that what is now section 21 (1) (d) be stricken out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is paragraph (e) as it appears in the bill?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Yes.


Mr. PINARD:: I should like to add a few words to what was said by a previous speaker. I think paragraph (e), which was just referred to, is a very general provision. It says that a person will cease to be a Canadian citizen and will lose his citizenship if he shows himself to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty. On that point I think this paragraph should be clarified and explained, because "disloyalty" has been defined in the criminal code. I think sections 74 to 87 describe the treasonable offences, but I believe here we should better explain what we believe would be disloyalty to His Majesty. For instance, I do not think it should be considered disloyal to His Majesty if one did not approve a measure which was ratified by the king on the advice of his South African or Australian ministers or, as another example, that a man would be disloyal if he did not approve the policy followed by His Majesty
Canadian Citizenship

in India. For these reasons I think this section should be clarified, and that after the words "His Majesty", we should add the words "as king of Canada". Otherwise there would be a great deal of confusion, and some injustice might be done. So that we might add after the words "His Majesty" the words "in the right of Canada".


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I amend my own amendment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By unanimous consent.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member wishes to do so he may withdraw his amendment by unanimous consent.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Then, if I may have consent to withdraw it I should like to substitute the following for the present paragraph:
has been convicted of treason or sedition by a court of competent jurisdiction under the law of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would not cover the cases I have mentioned, of people who have not committed treason. We have suspicions, or perhaps more than suspicions, but they have not committed treason. They have done things that come close to treason, but under the law they are not characterized as such. That is so, for example, in connection with some of those people who went to Germany. The words, "by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty" have been in the present act since 1914. They are in all the corresponding acts throughout the commonwealth. They were in the Naturalization Act prior to 1914. They have caused no difficulty, and regretfully I must say that I cannot accept the amendment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I may ask a question, did I understand the minister to say that the Secretary of State would have the power, to be used in his discretion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The governor in council.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What I am afraid of is that if we should be so unfortunate as to have the C.C.F. party get into power, they might be able to cancel my citizenship.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: We shall preserve you.


John George Diefenbaker: At this hour I am not going to get into another controversy regarding orders in council. I think we shall have an interesting debate on that, from the warning given by the hon. member for Vancouver East. But there is a question which should be settled by an opinion from the law officers

of the crown. It deals generally with the question of orders in council. Earlier this evening it was stated than an order in council passed prior to this bill becoming law, of an import contrary to the statute itself, would be effectual as against this statute when it becomes law.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will see that what my hon. friend suggests is done; but if my hon. friend does not mind my saying so, I do not think that comes under this section. However, I shall note the point. I am rather anxious to have this section passed, if I can; and since I did something which provoked the observation that I would be receiving excessive cooperation, perhaps I might ask for that consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to go into the question at the moment, because I do not think this particular section will pass this evening, but this is just another of these sections which will result in the setting up of more of these inquiries and commissions, to which we have been raising strong objection in recent days. I thought I would join a discussion of this section with a request to the minister that he secure an opinion from the law officers of the crown supporting the view expressed this evening by himself and by the Minister of Veterans Affairs-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall.


John George Diefenbaker: -that when this statute is passed and becomes the law of the country it is going to take second place to an order in council passed before this statute came into effect. If that is so, then we have arrived at a state of affairs in this country that is not to be found anywhere else. To me it is a most amazing proposition, that in May, 1946, we pass a statute in this parliament, and that when in reference to an order in council previously passed we import into the statute conditions, terms and qualifications different from the order in council, the order in council takes precedence over this statute. To me that is an incomprehensible view, and I do not think *it has even been supported in any court of law.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course this act, as an act of parliament, has priority over anything.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; this act of parliament has priority over anything. That being so, this act of parliament, granting as it does rights to Canadian citizens, will not be subject to any interpretation on the basis of an order in council passed last fall. I think it is a matter of great importance, be-

Canadian Citizenship
cause we are going to find ourselves in this position. The order in council respecting the Japanese is now before the courts for interpretation. While that is the case parliament passes a citizenship bill which in part goes contrary to the provisions of the order in council,. If the statement made by my hon. friend is correct, with which I agree, that the act of parliament is superior to the order in council-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not affect the order in council. They are two separate matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no. The order m council affects citizens of this country, and we are now passing an act of parliament granting rights to citizens different from those provided under the order in council. I think it is a matter which deserves serious consideration and on which an opinion of the law
officers of the crown should be secured. If my view is correct, and it is supported by my hon. friend the Secretary of State, then we are going to find ourselves in a most peculiar position.


William Henry Golding: I wonder if we could deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, that section 21(1) (d) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
has been convicted of treason or sedition by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


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