1946-04-29

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I beg leave to table the text of the Great lakes fisheries convention between Canada and the

Privilege-Mr. Gray don
United States of America, signed at Washington on April 2, 1946. The convention was signed by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) and the Canadian Ambassador, Mr. Pearson, on behalf of Canada, and by the Acting Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson, on behalf of the United States of America. The convention will come into force when ratifications have been exchanged.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Could the Prime Minister or the Minister of Fisheries indicate briefly the substance of the convention which has just been tabled?


Mr. BRIDGES:: I think there will be an opportunity later to make a statement concerning this matter; therefore I should prefer not to say anything at the present time.


John Bracken: We shall have copies of the document?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, copies will go to my hon. friend.



HOUSING


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The speech from the throne opening the present session of parliament forecast action to bring all matters relating to the construction of housing, as largely as possible under the administration of one minister of the crown. By order in council P.C. 1513 of April 16, 1946, the responsibility for housing has been vested in the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Hitherto, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has been responsible for the operations of Wartime Housing Limited, but other aspects of housing responsibility have been vested in the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Under the new arrangement, the responsibility for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which was established early this year under the Minister of Finance and which has responsibility for the administration of the National Housing Act and of the emergency shelter regulations, in addition to the financing of housing construction, will be transferred to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Arrangements have also been made to coordinate the operations carried on under the Veterans Land Act in relation to non-farm housing with the activities which will now centre in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.
I wish to table a copy of order in council P.C. 1513 of April 16, in relation to housing.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. An editorial entitled "Classifying Canadians" appears in the current issue of Saturday Night. The first paragraph thereof reads as follows:
We should be sorry if parliament were to adopt Mr. Gordon Graydon's proposal and refuse to employ naturalised Canadians in the civil service. The further suggestion that even born Canadians be barred from the service if their parents were naturalized was. probably not intended very seriously.
The remainder of the editorial is devoted to a critical analysis of the position I am supposed to have taken. My purpose in rising is to say that at no time have I taken such a position or made such a proposal, and I fancy every hon. .member of the house will agree with me on that. I know that Saturday Night, whose columns are always characterized by fairness and reason, would want me to put the record straight at the first opportunity. This I am doing. Were the statement ito go unchallenged, a grave injustice unwittingly might easily be done to scores of thousands of loyal naturalized citizens of Canada, many of whom have served with high distinction in the last war and this. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I think it must have been a case of mistaken identity, but I have not been able to run it down yet. >



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. R. BEAUDOIN (Vaudreuil-Soulanges) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 58, respecting the recognition, observance and commemoration of Canadian citizenship.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BEAUDOIN:: It is suggested by this bill, Mr. Speaker, that each year a day be set aside as citizenship day, a public occasion for the recognition of all who in consequence of the adoption of the Canadian citizenship act will have attained the status of Canadian citizens; a public occasion for all Canadians to develop mutual understanding and promote national unity.
I know the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) will endeavour to provide effective and impressive ceremonies for the admission of new

Canadian Citizenship

Canadians into the Canadian family. The house agreed with him when he said, as reported at page 504 of Hansard:
One thing wTe hope to do, following the passage of this measure-
That is, the Canadian citizenship bill.
-is to provide a more effective and impressive ceremony for admission ipto the Canadian family.
Also when he said:
We are convinced of the desirability of emulating the form of ceremony which characterizes the admisssion of persons into United States citizenship.	,
Canada may want to emulate the form of celebration, which does not interfere with admission ceremonies, instituted by the United States on May 3, 1940, which takes place on the third Sunday in May of each year, and is designated as "I am an American" day. This bill proposes to create "I am a Canadian" day. Service clubs, social organizations and other institutions in Canada have shown their willingness to do the spade-work to bring this sort of celebration into being. For instance, at one of their annual conventions the junior chambers of commerce of Canada adopted a resolution in which they suggested a special citizenship week each year, which would be called Canada week, and I am informed that such a move is now being organized, with the period fixed as June 2 to June 8 next. Let us give these patriotic organizations our encouragement; and a debate on this bill, should it take place, I am sure will bring out most valuable suggestions. Incidentally I would hope that the proclamation of our official flag might coincide with the proclamation of our citizenship bill.
The purpose of this bill is to help Canadians, old and new, especially the older Canadians who are supposed to set the good examples and lead the way for the new, not only to realize and take pride in the achievements and the greatness of Canada but to promote national unity by reminding all of us of our present status and future aspirations as a nation. According to this bill, each year throughout Canada the anniversary of the day fixed by proclamation of the governor in council as the date of coming into force of the Canadian citizenship act, which it has been said "symbolizes our aspirations as a nation" shall be a legal holiday, kept and observed as such under the name of "Canadian citizenship day".
Let me close my explanations with these words of the Secretary of State when intro-

ducing the Canadian citizenship bill on October 1, 1945, and again on the motion for second reading of the bill on April 2, 1946:
For the national unity of Canada and for the future and greatness of this country it is felt to be of the utmost importance that all of us, new Canadians or old, have a consciousness of a common purpose and common interests as Canadians; that all of us be able to say with pride and say with meaning-
And may I add, to proclaim at least once a year, in some sort of official and solemn way: "I am a Canadian citizen."
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 51 for the relief of Vera Harriet May Kinghorn Hodgson.-Mr. MacLean.

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MacINNIS;
1.	What was the amount of the increase in the price of steel allowed by the wartime prices and trade board to manufacturers of steel?
2.	In granting this increase in price to the steel manufacturers, was there any stipulation written or implied that a certain amount of the increase was to meet wage increase to steelworkers ?
3.	If so, what amount of the price increase was intended for wage increase?
4.	Were the steel companies instructed as to when the wage increase should become effective?
Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Board order No. 617 authorized an increase in steel prices based on $5 per ingot ton of steel produced.
2.	No, but the manufacturers were required to provide a forecast of probable operating costs, estimated production, sales and distribution volume and other cost and financial information on the basis of which the board reached its decision as to the price increase which seemed reasonable in all the circumstances.
3	and 4. Answered by No. 2.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORTS
Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	How many of the transport planes known as D6 are at present (a) in use by T.C.A.; (b) on order with manufacturers for T.C.A.?
2.	What is the contract price per plane?
3.	When are the planes now ordered to be delivered?

Questions
4.	How many Canadian airports are at present of a standard fit for the use of the DO fully loaded?
5.	What are such airports?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	(a) Nil. (b) None, known as D6, but 20 aircraft of the 4-engine transport type are on order.
2.	Not yet determined.
3.	Beginning September 1946.
4.	There are no D6's regularly operating in Canada but experience gained by United States authorities would indicate that 14 existing Canadian airports would be of a standard fit for use by the type of aircraft referred to in 1 (b) above.
5.	Whitehorse, Watson Lake, Fort St. John, Prince George, Penticton, Vancouver, Grande Prairie, Namao, Edmonton, Tire Pas, Churchill, Montreal, Seven Islands, Dartmouth. It should be noted that 4-engine aircraft are intended for use on the transatlantic, transpacific and South American services and not at present for services in Canada.


CANADIAN NAVY-PERMANENT FORCE
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many ratings were enlisted in the permanent force navy (a) as of August 31, 1945; (b) as of February 28. 1946?
2.	Of the ratings enlisted in the permanent [DOT] force navy, how many were in the seaman branch (a) as of August 31, 1945; (b) as of February 28, 1946?
3.	How many seamen are allowed for in the complement of the permanent force navy?
4.	How many men in the said complement comprise each of the following categories (a) chief petty officers; (b) petty officers; (c) leading seamen; (d) able seamen; (e) ordinary
seamen?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	Ratings in permanent forceas of August 31. 1945	 3,383
as of February 28, 1946	 3,765
2.	Ratings in permanent force
(seamen branch)

as of August 31, 1945	 1,674
as of February 28, 1946	 1,740
3.	Seamen allowed in complement
of permanent force, navy.... 3,918*
4.	Comprising-
(a)	Chief petty officer	
174*(b)	Petty officers	
456*(c)	Leading seamen	
548*(d)	and (e) Able seamen andordinary seamen	
2,740*
*The above figures (Nos. 3 and 4) have not been completely finalized but are accurate to within 5 per cent.


CUTTING OF MERCHANTABLE TIMBER
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	How many feet of lumber and/or other merchantable timber have the following firms taken out of their respective timber limits in Canada since 1899 (a) the Northern Trusts Co., Winnipeg, Manitoba; (4) Berpall Lumber Co., Milwaukee, Wisconsin; (c) The Royal Trust Co., Vancouver, British Columbia; (d) Deer Park Lumber Co., Washington, U.S.A.?
2.	What amount of money was received in each case above by the Canadian government?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	Feet Board Measure:	(a)	13,562,435;
(b) nil; (c) nil; (d) 6,878,656.
Shingles: (a) 198,500; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) nil.
Poles lin. feet: (a) 1,390; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) nil.
Fuelwood cords: (a) 28,234; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) nil.
Lath: (a) 472,000; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) nil.
2.	Amount paid to the government, made up of ground rent, licence fees and royalty dues: (a) 824,381.00; (b) $510.10; (c) nil; (d) $7,688.97.


VETERANS LAND ACT-PERTH COUNTY
Mr. BRADSHAW:: 1.	How many applications for the purchase of farms under the Veterans Land Act in Perth county are now pending awaiting inspection?
2.	How many farms have been purchased in the said county since the Act came into force?
3.	What was the acreage in each farm and the price paid for each?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	Seventy.
2.	Thirty-one.
3.	(Below).
Farms Purchased in Perth County as of 15th April, 1946
64	acres	
$3,60050	"	
4,000100	"	
4,80095	"	
3,20049	"	
800100	"	
4,300126	"	
4,800100	"	
7,700100	"	
5,000100	"	
5,000100	"	
7,60060	"	
3,200100	"	
8,00080	"	
4,00050	"	
1,200
Questions

99-5	acres	
$4,800100	"	
5,500100	"	
7,000100	"	
4,500100	"	
150050	"	
2,000100	"	
4,80064	"	
3,00075	"	
3,00050	"	
2,800100	"	
5,200100	"	
4,000100	"	
4,80071	"	
2,500100	"	
5,200100	"	
4,800DAIRY BUTTER	'


Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	Has the government agencies throughout the country purchasing dairy butter?
2.	What price is paid for it?
3.	What allowance is made to the agents for making such purchases and/or for storage?
4.	What quantity was purchased last year?
5.	What quantities wrere purchased in each of the following months: January, February and March of 1946?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 
NUMBER OF DEATHS CAUSED BY BURNS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Does the government have any method of tabulating or keeping records of the number of deaths to Canadians by burns?
2.	If so, how many deaths were caused in this way during 1944 and 1945?
3.	flow many of these were of children, 12 years of age and under?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In 1944, 3071; in 1945, 396t.
tAuthority-Provincial fire marshals' and
fire commissioners' offices.
3.	In 1944, 92*; in 1945, 91*.
*Authority-Available newspaper clippings.
Note-Above figures relate to deaths by fire
and do not include all the deaths attributed to accidental burns in the various classifications used by the Dominion bureau of statistics.


YELLOWKNIFE, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, GOVERNMENT OFFICES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TOWNLEY-9MITH:
1.	Who holds the following government positions at Yellowknife, * Northwest Territories
(a)	stipendiary magistrate; (b) chairman of the board of trustees (town council); (c) do-

Questions
minion land agent; (d) timber berth agent; (e) legislation clerk for deeds, etc.; (f) mining recorder?
2.	What are the salaries or commissions attached to the positions?
Mr. GLEN:: 1.	(a), (b), (c), (d), (f)-The functions
indicated are performed by Mr. Fred Fraser, a qualified lawyer with extensive northern experience, who is a veteran of World War II. He is assisted throughout the year by Mr. Arthur Ames, Inspector of Mines; Mr. J. R. McElroy, departmental accountant, grade 2; Mr. L. G. Bonnyman, clerk, grade 3; three clerks, grade 2, one stenographer, grade 2; and one typist, grade 2.	,
(e) Probably refers to registrar of deeds under Navigable Waters Act, for which Mr. Fraser is responsible.
During the field season the duties are shared by the chief inspector of the bureau of Northwest Territories and Yukon affairs.
As chairman of the board of trustees, Yellowknife administrative district, Mr. Fraser has the assistance of the local managers of the three large mining companies in the district, viz., Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, Negus Mines Limited, and Giant Yellowknife Company, who have been appointed members of the board of trustees, and of three additional local men who are elected by the residents of the Yellowknife settlement.
In matters of townsite development the federal departments of Public Works, Transport and National Health and Welfare supply technical advice and assistance as required.
2.	Salary as stipendiary magistrate is $3,600 per annum, plus a living allowance not exceeding $90 per month. Additional duties carry no remuneration.


VETERANS LAND ACT-FARM EQUIPMENT
Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	How many ex-servicemen have been approved as qualified to come within the terms of the Veterans Land Act, as at April 15, 1946?
2.	How many land purchases have been approved as at April 15, 1946?
3.	How many applications for financial assistance have been approved?
4.	How many veterans have purchased farm equipment through the Veterans Land Act as at April 15, 1946?
5.	Has the equipment purchased been new or
second-hand?
6.	What is the total amount that has been paid for new equipment?
7.	What is the total amount that has been paid for second-hand equipment?
8.	Of the number of applications still uncompleted, how many require farm equipment?
9. Will the Department of Veterans Affairs be required to pay the 12J per cent increase on farm equipment authorized by the Minister of Finance on April 13, 1946?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: -
1. Figures not available as at April 15, 1946, but on March 31, 1946, they were as
follows:
Full time farming	10,544
Small holdings	12,576
Commercial fishing	 347
Provincial land	 1,123
2.	As at March 31, 1946:
Full time farming	 5,132
Small holdings	 3,586
Commercial fishing	 90
3.	As at March 31, 1946:
Full time farming	 2,888
Small holdings	 2,633
Commercial fishing	 107
4.	1,127 engaged in full time farming received some or all of their farm equipment.
5.	79-6 per cent new; 20-4 per cent secondhand.
6.	$482,467.93.
8. $123,676.54.
8.	2,111 full time farmers still have undisbursed balances for stock and equipment, the majority of whom will require farm equipment.
9.	Yes, less usual special discounts.


UNRRA-CANNED FISH
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What kind of canned fish has been bought by UNRRA in Canada?
2.	What was paid for each kind of canned fish?
3.	Was price for Atlantic and Pacific canned fish the same?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Chicken Haddie, Flaked Fish, East and West Coast Herring, Mackerel, Shad, Pollock.
	Fancy	Standard Grade
Chicken Haddie.	$10 00	$8 75 	Flaked Fish	9 25	8 00 	Herring, East...	5 90	5 25 	Herring, West..	.... $4 22Mackerel 	9 00	8 00 	Shad 	6 25 	
All the above prices one per case of 48-1's. Sub-standard pack is purchased at a discount of 20 per cent from standard grade
prices.
3.	No. The price of herring differs as shown in No. 2. Herring is the only type of fish
purchased on both coasts.
Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-BATTLE RIBBONS
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Are the members of the force of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police obliged to wear their battle ribbons when on duty?
2.	If so, do they receive an allowance to cover the cost?


Mr. JEAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.


DAIRY BUTTER
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1. What quantities ported last year?	of dairy butter	were ex-
Country	January Cwt. Value	
Bermuda 	
825	$ 38,400British Guiana 	
85	3,334British Honduras ...	-Barbados 	
547	20,349Jamaica 	
404	18,099Trinidad 	
770	27,720British West Indies,	other 34	1,439Newfoundland 	
263	12,248Colombia 	-3t. Pierre 	
101	5,645Totals 	
3,029	$127,243


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-MEAT INVESTIGATORS AND INSPECTORS
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Poterborough):: 1.	How many meat investigators and inspectors are in the employ of the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	Since 1945, when meat rationing was imposed, what amount for (a) salaries; (b) fees; (c) expenses, has been paid out to date in respect of such meat investigators and inspectors?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	83 (Supplemented by the services of the ration officials and) women's advisory committees of the wartime prices and trade board, and by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the various areas).
2.	(a) $103,948.66, in respect of meat investigators and inspectors; (b) nil; (c) $30,468.41, in respect of meat investigators and inspectors.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH:
1.	What is the name of the council governing the northwest territories?
2.	Who are the members of this council and what are their salaries?
3.	How are these members chosen?
4.	Where does this council sit?

2.	To what countries was it exported?
3.	What was the price obtained?
4.	What quantities of butter were exported in each of the following months: January, February and March, 1946?
5.	To what countries was such butter exported?
6.	What was the price received?
Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Dairy butter is not separately classified by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. It is not possible, therefore, to answer questions 1, 2 and 3.
4,	5, 6. Canadian exports, by countries, butter of all kinds during the months of January, February and March, 1946:
February		March	
Cwt.	Value	Cwt.	Value8	$ 334	-	S -68	3,568	1,261	49,993-	-	150	6,487644	25,082	600	21,750504	18,144	-	850	37,195	950	37,093409	19,447	122	5,36193	4,309	395	17,752-	1	78-	-	161	7,4382,576	$108,079	3,640	$145,9525.	Which members of this council are normally resident in some part of the Northwest Territories, and which are not?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	The Northwest Territories Act (Chapter 142, R.S.C. 1927) provides that the governor in council may appoint for the Northwest Territories a chief executive officer to be styled and known as the commissioner of the Northwest Territories, and that the governor in council may appoint persons not exceeding six in number to be a council to aid the commissioner in the administration of the territories. The powers of the commissioner in council of the Northwest Territories are defined.
The commissioner in council is aided by administrative and technical officers of the following government departments: Department of Mines and Resources, Department of Justice, Department of Public Works, Department of Transport, Department of National Health and Welfare, Department of National Defence, Department of Labour, Department of Agriculture, Department of Fisheries, Department of Reconstruction and Supply, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Post Office Department, Department of National Revenue.

Questions
These departments are represented in the territories permanently or seasonably, as necessity may require.
2.	The Northwest Territories council is
composed as follows:	Commissioner, Dr.
Charles Camsell; deputy commissioner, Mr. R. A. Gibson; members of council, Mr. A. L. Cumming, Mr. K. R. Daly, Brigadier S. T. Wood, Mr. R. A. Hoey.
These senior civil servants receive no remuneration for their services as members of the Northwest Territories council.
3.	See (1) above.
4.	The seat of government is at Ottawa, where there is direct contact with the Minister of Mines and Resources, and the advice and assistance of all federal government departments is readily available. Adequate inspec-tional services are maintained and the members of council visit the Northwest Territories as opportunity permits.
5.	No members of the Northwest Territories council are normally resident in the territories, but ready communication is maintained through government wireless services and by air mail.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-BELLEVILLE OFFICE-PROSECUTIONS
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	How many prosecutions, through the Belleville office have been proceeded with to date for infraction of any of the regulations of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board?
2.	What is the total amount of fines and costs that have been recovered?
3.	(a) What is the total amount of legal fees and disbursements that have been paid to counsel and solicitors in respect of such prosecutions;
(b)	what amounts are still due?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	168.
2.	S4.893.00.
3.	(a) 82,907.79; (b) $30.00.
Note: Two accounts are still with the Department of Justice, for approval, in accordance with government procedure.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	How many (a) investigators; (b) other officials, officers and staff, are now employed in the office of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board at Belleville?
2.	What amount has been paid out for (a) salaries; (b) fees; (c) expenses, in respect of such employees since the Belleville office was established ?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	(a) five; (b) seven.
2.	(a) $29,051.94; (b) nil; (c) $4,782.84.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	How many people were in the employ of the Bank of Canada in 1945, and what did their total salaries for that year amount to?
2.	What did it cost the Bank of Canada to manage the public debt of Canada in 1945?
3.	What did it cost the Bank of Canada to render other services in 1945. and to whom were they rendered?
4.	How many notes did the Bank of Canada put in circulation in 1945?
5.	What did it cost the bank to put these notes in circulation and service them for 1945?
6.	From what sources did the Bank of Canada obtain its revenue in 1945 and how much from each source?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	The annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the minister of Finance states that the staff of the bank numbered 1,166 at December 31, 1945.
2 and 3. Not of government record.
4.	The annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance states that the Bank of Canada note issue as at December 31, 1945, was $1,129,099,247, an increase of $93,126,640 from the same date a year before.
5 and 6. Not of government record.


YOHO NATIONAL PARK-LEASES OR MINING RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MATTHEWS, (Kootenay East):
1.	Have leases or mining rights been granted to anyone to operate within the Yolio National Park. If so, to whom?
2.	When were such leases or rights granted, and when will the same expire?
Mr. GLEN:: 1. Yes, as follows

Township 27, Range 18, West 5th Meridian.
Mining Land Sale 164 to British Columbia Government by Order in Council 26/5/06.
Mining Land Sale 165 to British Columbia Government by Order in Council 26/5/06. Township 28, Range 18, West 5th Meridian.
Mining Land Sale 16, patented 21/5/91, to Golden Mining and Smelting Company.
Mining Land Sale 25 (Monarch Claim) to British Columbia Government by Order in Council 14/2/93.
St. Etienne Fraction Mineral Claim, Lot 2813, Kootenay District (adjoining Monarch Claim)-Erskine Jones. Surveyed in 1914. No Crown Grant issued but applicant allowed to operate under licence dated October 1st, 1920.
Mineral rights in an area comprising approximately 2 square miles awarded to Amos Bliss Trites on May 1st, 1926, under special agreement for a period of 21 years.
Questions

Township 27, Range 19, West 5th Meridian.
Mining Land Sale 166, to British Columbia Government by Order in Council 26/5/06.
Mining Land Sale lift to British Columbia Government by Order in Council 20/9/10.
Mining Land Sale 157 to British Columbia Government by Order in Council 7/11/107.
2.	The Mining Land Sales referred to in (1) were outright sales and disposed of the minerals by Crown Grant. The date of the leases is answered in No. (1). The mining rights held by Amos Bliss Trites, and now held by the Base Metals Mining Corporation, expire on May 1st, 1947. This includes St. Etienne fraction mineral claim, lot 2813, referred to in (1) above. There is also a special provision in this agreement which provides that Mr. Trites, or his assignees, shall convey to His Majesty the Monarch Mineral Claim, together with all other mineral claims for which he holds any right or title from the Government of the Province of British Columbia or the Dominion of Canada in said township upon the termination of the special Agreement above referred to.
i	Sept.	Oct.Angus, W. G	
$ 8 20	$ 6 24Malcolm, G. A	
142 00	149	71Symmonds, C. S	
100 95	99	254.	Eight.


Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	Is G. R. Carroll acting chief alternative service officer?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What is his age?
5.	What expenses has he charged from the date of his appointment to the end of March, 1946?
6.	What was his former employment?
7.	What is his home address?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes, Mr. G. R. Carroll is acting Chief Alternative Service Officer.
2.	March 22, 1946.
3.	$2,400 per annum.
4.	Thirty years.
5.	From the date of his appointment as acting Chief Alternative Service Officer to the end of March, 1946, no expenses have been charged by Mr. Carroll.
6.	Naval Service 1940-1945.
7.	8 Graham avenue, Ottawa.
IMr. Glen.]


ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OFFICES
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What are the names of those employed in the alternative service office at Kitchener? .
2.	What salary is paid to each?
3.	What was the travelling expenses allowed to each for the months of September, October, November and December, 1945, and January, February, March, 1946?
4.	How many alternative service offices are operated in Canada?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1 and 2. Names and salaries of those employed in the alternative service office at Kitchener:
Name	Salary
Angus, Wm. G	$3,600
Malcolm, G. A	 1,800
Peer, Mrs. M. S	 840
Peppier M. M	 1,200
Schaffer, M. G	 1,260
Symmonds, C. S	 3,000
3.	Travelling expenses allowed each for the following months:
1945	1946
Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. $-	$3 98	$-	$- S -85 90	70 46	75 44	78 16	80 9373 70	106 35	99 05	96 00	131 00


EXHIBITION BUILDINGS TORONTO-DESTRUCTION BY FIRE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was the army occupying the grandstand at the Canadian National Exhibition at Toronto during the fire on Sunday last, April 14, which destroyed the grandstand?
2.	What was the cause of the fire?
3.	Has the government any insurance on this plant? If so, to what amount?
4.	Will the government convene a court of inquiry under the army regulations to enquire into the cause of the fire and will compensation be afforded the city for the loss thereof?
5.	When will all the buildings on these grounds be vacated by the forces and returned to the city?
6.	Who occupied the premises underneath the stand at the time of the fire?
7.	What fire apparatus and appliances had the government at the time of the fire in the C.N.E. grounds?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Not yet been determined.
3.	No. However under the terms of the agreement the government reimbursed the

Questions
Canadian National Exhibition for the premiums which are paid by them on this property.
4.	A court of inquiry has already been convened in accordance with Army regulations. The building in question is covered by fire insurance. See No. 3 above.
5.	The army will vacate these buildings on or about 31 v May, 1946.
6.	Army personnel-Members of No. 2 district depot.
7.	Chemical extinguishers, standpipes and the necessary hose and nozzles in all buildings on a scale of issue based on fire underwriters specifications. A fire alarm system is maintained. A fire brigade composed of six full time trained fire fighters and a fire truck complete with the necessary equipment and tools are provided for the area. A night fire patrol is also maintained.


NATIONAL SELECTIVE SERVICE MOBILIZATION REGULATIONS, 1944
Mr. JUTRAS:: As of March 31, 1946, what was the total number of designated men in Canada under the N.S.S. mobilization regulations, 1944, in the following groups (a) on postponement from military service; (b) medically examined and found unfit for military service; (c) medically examined and found fit, but not sent an order to report for military service; (d) not sent an order to report for medical examination; (e) excepted from the National Selective Service mobilization regulations, 1944; (f) not'accounted for?


Humphrey Mitchell: (a) 277,118; (b) 616,794; (c) 14,543; (d) 31,283; (e) 25,061; (f) 7,632.


CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	How many conscientious objectors are in the alternative work camps?
2.	How many have been released?
3.	On what grounds were they released?
4.	How many of those released were made to work in agriculture?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	As of March 31, 1946-202.
2.	From May 1, 1943 (commencement of alternative service operation) to March 31, 1946

2,834. (This figure includes those men who have been released from and recalled to camp for not abiding by the regulations applicable to postponed conscientious objectors outside of camps. In some cases men have been released again after having been recalled.)
3.	Willingness to abide by the regulations applicable to postponed conscientious objectors outside of alternative service work camps, revocation of conscientious objector's status, and for compassionate reasons.
4.	As from May 1, 1943, to March 31, 1946 -2,419 were released from camp and directed to agriculture. This figure does not include those postponed conscientious objectors who have been granted farm leave from camp from time to time.


MOUNTED POLICE-RANK AND SENIORITY UPON RETURN FROM OVERSEAS SERVICE
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Do members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who served in the overseas forces enjoy the privileges of rank and seniority upon rejoining the R.C.M.P.?
2.	If not, why are they not accorded such privileges?


Mr. JEAN:: 1.	At the outbreak of war the Minister of Justice made an appeal by letter to all ranks of the R.C.M. Police to stay at their, posts, owing to the increased responsibilities of the force, and the impossibility of securing recruits, and in order to make it more difficult to leave the force, the normal means of discharge by purchase, etc., were suspended.
In order to assist the military authorities, and at the same time provide a channel for those members of the force who were anxious to join the fighting forces, No. 1 Provost Company of the First Canadian Division was organized within the force in October, 1939, and the police personnel which composed that company, together with reinforcements, were granted leave of absence without pay. All these retained rank, seniority and other privileges.
Furthermore, those who later severed their connection with the R.C.M. Police at the time of the expiration of their engagement with the R.C.M. Police and joined the armed forces of Canada and served overseas, on reengagement in the R.C.M. Police have been reinstated in their former rank, pay, allowances and seniority, with the exception of N.C.O.'s who lose seniority only. (Seven N.C.O.'s are thus affected, having left the Force to accept commissions in the armed services).
2.	In addition to the seven N.C.O.'s referred to in No. 1 above, all other members of the force who served in the armed forces in Canada only have been offered re-engagement in their former rank, pay and allowances but not seniority, in fairness to those members of the force who either joined the number one provost company or stayed with the R.C.M. Police.
acnsxD EDITION

Questions as Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Has the government or War Assets Corporation sold any new machines to the John Bertram Company, Limited, of Dundas, Ontario? If so, what did these machines cost the government, and for what price were they sold to the John Bertram Company?
2.	Has the government or War Assets Corporation sold any machines as scrap to the John Bertram Company, Limited, of Dundas, Ontario? If so, what did these machines cost the government, and for what price were they sold to the John Bertram Company?
3.	Has the government or War Assets Cor-pooration sold any used machines to the John Bertram Company, Limited, of Dundas, Ontario? If so, what did these machines cost the government, and for what price were they sold to the John Bertram Company?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Return tabled.


RADIO BROADCASTING-CHANNELS ASSIGNED UNDER HAVANA AGREEMENTS
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Have the number and classification of channels assigned to Canada under the Havana agreements been readjusted or altered? If so, under what agreements and what channels are now assigned to Canada?
2.	What is the frequency of each?
3.	What is the minimum and maximum power of each channel?
4.	How many of them are now occupied?
5.	What stations occupy them?
6.	What power are they using? *
7.	What channels are exempted from the use of minimum power?
8.	What stations since 1939 have applied for an increase of power; what power was applied for, and what power increase was granted?
9.	Has application been made since 1939 for the use of unoccupied channels?
10.	If so, what power was applied for?
11.	What is the minimum power of the unoccupied channels?
12.	What stations have applied for permits to experiment or otherwise in frequency modulation, television, facsimile?
13.	Have any permits been granted?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


WAR ASSETS-MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. CHARLTON:: 1.	How many (1) passenger motor cars; (2) station wagons; (3) sedan delivery trucks, owned by the Department of National Defence (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air force (i) have been declared sudplus; (ii) are held for disosal by War Assets Corporation; (iii) have
een disposed of by War Assets Corporation?
2.	To whom were such vehicles sold and at what price?
3.	Were any sold to government departments?
4.	If so, to what departments and how many to each?



WAR ASSETS


Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What are the total sales by categories, by War Assets Corporation to educational bodies in Canada for vocational training and educational instructional purposes?
2.	What is the type of equipment disposed of on indefinite loan by War Assets Corporation to educational institutions for vocational training and educational instructional purposes?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



SASKATCHEWAN POST OFFICES-REVENUE

Mr. McKAY:: What was the revenue of the following post offices in Saskatchewan during the years 1938 to 1945 inclusive (a) Radville; (b) Weyburn;
(c)	Milestone; (d) Lanigan?



GOVERNMENT OPERATED VESSELS

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Has the government placed any contracts with shipbuilding concerns in Canada this year for the construction of vessels to be operated by the government or any of its departments?
2.	If so, what companies have received such contracts, what is the size of the ships that are being built and what will they be used for?
3.	Has the government taken any action toward calling for tenders for the building of other ships this year? If so, for what size ships and for what use?
4.	Is the government replacing this year any obsolete vessels owned by it? If so, what obsolete vesesls will be replaced and where are they registered?



CANADIAN FORCES-LOSS OF BUILDINGS BY FIRE .

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What was the total loss by fire in the various camps and buildings in Canada occupied by the forces during the late war, brought up to date since the return tabled in 1944?
2.	Where did these fires occur?
3.	What was the insurance on each place?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. HOMUTH (for Mr. Desmond):: For a copy of all orders in council approved since September 6, 1945, under the authority of the Department of Munitions and Supply Act.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Desmond), and I understand it is his intention to ask that it be dropped. He already has the information. I talked with him just before coming to the house.


Gordon Graydon: Let it stand in the meantime.
Motion stands.

Dairy Products-Subsidies


Mr. LOCKHART:: For a copy of all correspondence on building material which has passed between the federal government and any municipal authority from V-J day until the passing of P.C. 1184.



CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I have not given notice of it, but I think the right hon. gentleman when he hears it will realize that notice was not necessary. The government is now engaged, with the provinces, in a further dominion-provincial conference, of which there have been several since last August. Will the government give consideration to putting together in one printed form, for the information of hon. members, the official statements made by this government and by the official representatives from the provinces? These would be the statements since the first conference last August, including the present one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's suggestion is a good one. Certainly those statements will be brought together under one cover.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to direct another question, of which I have not given notice, to the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Finance. It has to do with dairy products subsidies. I understand that they are given by the year, and that they terminate at the end of this month, which is to-morrow. Will either of the ministers I have named make a statement to-morrow as to government policy respecting these subsidies; and will the government give consideration to the raising of the subsidies, in view of the increased cost of labour and the increased cost of other factors entering into production?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Recommendations in connection
with the subsidies on milk were made to council just before I left for the Easter recess. I returned only this morning, and have not yet had an opportunity to attend council. I shall look into the matter immediately.
63260-63i
,	WHEAT



BONUS FOR SHIPMENTS OVERSEAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: May I ask a question of the appropriate minister? Has the government considered the payment to farmers of a bonus of thirty cents per bushel for wheat to be delivered immediately for shipment overseas? I understand this is already being done in the United States. Sometimes we follow the action taken in that country. *


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who is the
appropriate minister?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The Minister of
Finance.


Robert Fair: Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce could give us a reply.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I did not
hear the first part of the question.


Robert Fair: I should be very glad to
repeat it.


James Angus MacKinnon: However, I believe
the question opened by asking whether the government would give consideration. I shall discuss the point with my colleagues.



ALLAN CUP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Minister of National Defence for Air. I have not given notice of it. Is the minister aware that there now rests in the city of Calgary a Canadian championship in the form of the Allan cup?


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: I am unfortunately aware of it, but I am very glad to offer my congratulations to Calgary.



FARM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Will the government consider immediately increases in agricultural production prices which will enable the farmers to absorb the recent 12i per cent increase in the prices of agricultural implements?
9G6
Canadian Citizenship


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on that matter before the Easter recess.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the second reading of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens.
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I moved the adjournment of the debate, and I am ready to continue. During the Easter recess I felt that I could not do better than to make the widest possible investigation as to the opinion of the average man in the great counties of Grey, Wellington, Perth, Middlesex, Kent, Essex and parts of Elgin and Peel, as well as in my own riding in Toronto and other ridings in that city, about Bill No. 7, particularly section 10.
Generally I am in agreement with the bill. I believe there are a number of sections that should pass, but/I am opposed to part of section 10. I spent some time in the riding of the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) who introduced this bill. In that part of the country, and in the other parts to which I referred, I spoke to as many people as I could, high and low and in all walks of life, and I found a substantial opposition to section 10. Many of these people said that the section was incomprehensible to them. Some had come to this country from other parts of the empire, particularly from Great Britain; they had come from a part of the world in which they had learned democracy and from which they had brought the spirit of democracy to this country. They represent by far the largest majority of Canadians, and to me it is simply monstrous to ask that they have to be here five years before they can be granted Canadian- citizenship.


Mr. MARTIN:: It has been that way for twenty-seven years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. He knows that a man coming into this country from Great Britain to-day is permitted after one year to enrol and vote in our general elections whether he is a citizen or not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill does not disturb that at all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Anything might happen after section 10 has carried. The next step will be to change the franchise act so that
.
only citizens may vote. I am going to appeal to the minister to state when he speaks again that section 10 will be rewritten. As it is now, only a Philadelphia lawyer could understand it. Britishers should not be compelled to remain here five years before being granted Canadian citizenship. My own people have been here for four generations. Had they come only one generation ago, it would have been monstrous to ask them to remain here five years before being granted the right to citizenship. I spoke to clergymen of various denominations, to lawyers, to doctors, to business men, to garage men, to barbers, and to everyone whom I could engage in conversation. If, as the minister says, section 10 does not mean what I think it means, then it should be clarified.
I have discussed this section with several lawyers, both in and out of the house, and they tell me that they cannot understand what it really means. I suppose even a Philadelphia lawyer could not understand it. To indicate the opinion of the public with regard to section 10, I should like to quote one letter I have received. If this bill passes and persons from the British empir-e are forced to remain here five years before being granted Canadian citizenship, then, as I said a moment ago, the next step will be to change the franchise act to provide that only citizens may vote.
That was one cause of the South African war. The then president of the Transvaal, the late Paul Kruger, who in my judgment was a wonderful man; I have read 'his history many times-decided to amend the franchise act of the Transvaal to provide for several years' residence instead of what it then provided before obtaining the right to vote. That will be. the next step -here, and Anglo-Saxons may have to remain here five years before they have the right to vote. It is incredible that any such provision should be made part of our law. When the minister speaks I should like him to clarify this section-apparently very few people can understand it; then perhaps the bill will get through the house more rapidly.
I received a letter this morning from St. George's society in Toronto quoting a telegram which they had sent to the Prime Minister. It is dated at Toronto, April 16, 1946, and the telegram quoted therein reads as follows:
Twelve hundred members of St. George's society of Toronto, while heartily approving the principle of establishing a Canadian citizenship, nevertheless deplore that provision of the proposed act of parliament requiring British subjects to be domiciled for five years in Can-

Canadian Citizenship
ada prior to enjoying the privilege of such citizenship. Such a measure cannot fail to weaken the ties of empire at a time when they need strengthening.
This opinion therefore is general, because, as my hon. friend will freely admit, many leading citizens of Toronto and Canada are members of the St. George's society.
When the minister spoke on April 2 he quoted in support of his own argument a statement which had been -made in the house by the late Hon. C.. H. Cahan. I was present when Mr. Cahan spoke. He was an excellent speaker, and perhaps one of the greatest constitutional lawyers in Canada. He was referring to the progress made by Canada in the sixty-four years of its life from 1867, and he went on to say, as quoted by the minister:
In connection with that development, however, if we are to assume the status of a nation within the British commonwealth, we must also assume very serious duties and responsibilities. Among the responsibilities resting upon the parliament of Canada is that of framing a clear definition of "Canadian nationals" . . .
With that I agree, but I want especially to emphasize what the late Hon. C. H. Cahan said, "within the British commonwealth". Section 10, as I understand it, will do a lot more harm to the cause of maintaining Canada within the British empire than perhaps many of us want to believe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will not change it one iota.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Of course the minister has the majority behind him and has power to do what he likes, but that will not stop me from expressing my opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not suggesting that. I was simply saying that section 10 does not change what the hon. member wants, and what I personally support. It does not change that situation at all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have found from inquiries across eight or ten great counties of Ontario that many people have the same opinion that I have of section 10, and I repeat that St. George's Society, one of the leading societies of Canada, is of that opinion. We are all in the same boat; we do not understand it, so if the minister can clarify the section and can take away our fears it would go a long way towards eliminating opposition to this particular provision of the bill.
My own section of the city of Toronto is solidly Anglo-Saxon. The great majority of the people came there two or three years before the first great war. They took an ardent and active interest in the affairs of this country. They formed their own rifle associations and other groups, and when the war of 1914
broke out they did not have to be conscripted or coaxed to come to the defence of their country; they marched right up, like the men they were, and enlisted en masse. The society of which I was president, the British Imperial Association, had a great honour roll. Speaking from memory I think there were from 200 to 300 men on its honour roll who went overseas, and a great many of whom were killed in the defence of this country. I could not conceive of that breed of people coming to Canada if they thought they would have to remain five years within a part of the British empire before they could become citizens of Canada.
A gentleman told me to-day-I think it was the member for London (Mr. Manross)- about an Australian airman who had trained at an air camp in western Ontario-I had better not specify it because I did not have the hon. member's consent to say what I am about to say. This Australian airman had the good fortune to fall in love with a London girl, and perhaps has married her, but on reading over this bill he said that Australians could not be expected to come to Canada and remain here for five years before they could become Canadian citizens. Nor can we expect New Zealanders or South Africans or people from any other part of the British empire to come here if they have to wait five years before they can become Canadian citizens- unless they want very much to come here; and the more they want to come, the more we want to have them come. We do not want to discourage people from coming to Canada from other parts of the British empire. We should do everything we can to encourage them to come, because the greater the number that come the better it is for Canada and the British empire, as was demonstrated clearly in the last war. From my own section of the city of Toronto the sons of the fathers who came back to Canada from the first great war enlisted en masse in the second great war. They did not have to be conscripted or coaxed. They marched up and enlisted in regiments very shortly after the war broke out. That is the kind of people we want to come here, men who will rise up in defence of this country and the ideals for which it stands. We should not do anything to discourage them from coming to Canada.
A few days ago I read that the Ontario government has a list of selected emigrants from Great Britain, some 30,000 people, most of them war veterans, who want to come to Canada as soon as immigration opens up again. Do you think they would want to come to Canada if they had to remain here five years before they would be entitled to citizenship papers? I can hardly conceive of Bri-
*998
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sir Robert Borden put in the five-year period.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That five-year period had reference to people who were charged with the commission of misdemeanours.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is all this does.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Sir Robert Borden's bill had nothing to do with citizenship, otherwise we would not be discussing this bill now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sir Robert Borden introduced this provision to deal with the same point.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I agree with what the minister is trying to do. He wishes to remove ' the ambiguities in our naturalization act and in the Immigration Act and the Canadian Nationals Act. All credit to him for having that desire, but I suggest that he should rewrite section 10 so that it will not be necessary for representations to come from such a great society as St. George's society, and from many others whose understanding of the bill is the same as mine. The minister must admit that men of that calibre must be all mixed up, as I must be mixed up, if he is the only one who knows what the bill means.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have had no opportunity to answer what the hon. gentleman is saying, and it is because of speeches such as the one he is now making that this impression has been created. I will answer it when my turn comes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad the minister says that, because throughout the whole of this debate one member after another has referred to this point and it has gone unanswered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have repeatedly corrected every hon. member who has made the same statement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister has not corrected me yet. He has not stated to me emphatically that in the future, if this bill passes, no measure will be introduced providing that a Britisher must be here five years before being allowed to vote.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is exactly the situation as far as this government is concerned, and it always has been.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not know what the minister means.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I have stated on five different occasions in this debate, there is no intention of changing the election act in any way, nor could we do so by this bill. I have stated that repeatedly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I will say this. Having a keen recollection of what took place in this house not long ago-I know that I cannot refer to a past debate-when a certain measure passed through this house in one afternoon, I fear what might happen on some future occasion if a new franchise bill were introduced on the same basis as the one I have in mind, and which I will not name, if it was passed through this house in an afternoon, and it debarred British people from voting unless they were here five years I would not take a chance on it.
Some hon. members have said something about a ceremony in making a person a citizen. I agree with that. I have attended ceremonies in the United States when people were being granted the right of citizenship, and I think it is something we should carefully consider. Let me quote from the "Salute to the Flag". The person seeking admission to citizenship in the United State* goes before the judge, or the properly constituted authority, and takes this pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
They have a fine ceremony. I hope that the minister will have something of this kind in mind. An empire conference is now being held in England. Australia has sent delegates. I do not know whether Canada has sent any, but I read a few days ago a statement attributed to the Prime Minister of Australia approving the sending of the delegates. The dispatch was dated Canberra, April 9, and it states that the Prime Minister had announced that the Australian cabinet had approved of Australia being represented at the British commonwealth conference to discuss the proposed legislation on one nationality operating generally in the British commonwealth countries. I am not going to make any comment on that, but I am afraid of this bill being mentioned at that conference in London. If members of the St. George's society, which includes eminent and brilliant lawyers, judges and others, cannot understand it; and it may not be understood in London, England, how can the ordinary individual be expected to understand it?
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was the hon. gentleman not in the house when I gave an explanation?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to hear the minister repeat it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already said it on three occasions; apparently the hon. gentleman was too busy to listen. Officials of His Majesty's government have said that this bill is such an excellent one they consider it a model. The Prime Minister of Australia has said that the Canadian citizenship bill now before this house makes such an appeal to that country that they are going to take similar action.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall be surprised if that is so, particularly after what a young Australian said in London, Ontario, last week, namely, that he could not conceive of young Australians coming to this country and remaining here five years before they became Canadians.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They have it in Australia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should prefer to say
what I have to say, and then I should like the minister to get on his feet and give his explanations. We shall get him nailed down to the last letter before very long, so that there will be no ambiguity in the bill. We are going to try to see that all ambiguity is taken out of section 10.
Something has been said about what St. Paul said, and I wish to dwell on that for a moment or two. Let me refer to the citizenship we now enjoy. I am a citizen of the British empire, and always hope to be. I am proud of it. I have always felt that as I am Canadian bom I am a Canadian citizen. I do not require an act to make me a citizen of Canada; I am a citizen of Canada, fl agree that it is perhaps necessary to have a public statement or something to indicate that we have Canadian citizenship when the assessor comes around, so that we shall not have to say we are of Scotch, Irish, English or some other extraction. I agree with that part of the bill. '
Paul had a double citizenship. I do not mean Paul, the minister, although he is a British citizen and he will be a Canadian citizen when the bill goes through, if he is not one now. I said that I am a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am fast developing a
halo.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister will be no hero if section 10 is not changed greatly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said "halo".


John Ritchie MacNicol: I hope it will be a long time before the minister gets a halo. In chapter 21, verse 39 of the Acts of the Apostles, Paul said:
I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
He said he was a citizen of no mean city.


Mr. REID:: Like Toronto.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not see any joke about that.


Thomas Reid: I said, "like Toronto." There is nothing wrong with that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend is a
Scotsman. He ought to have a high regard for the Jews. I have.


Thomas Reid: I am a Canadian.


Mr. FRASER:: Not until the bill is
passed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When I first came to
the house and heard my hon. friend speak I could hardly understand him, his speech was so broad.


Thomas Reid: That was the hon. member's
fault.	t


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was not my fault. If he had been playing the bagpipes less in those days he would have been able to speak the English language better. He does not play the bagpipes so often just now, and he is doing better.
In chapter 22, at verse 25 of the Acts of the Apostles Paul said:-and I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the bible I have in my hand was lent to me by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) who reads it diligently and who among the members of this house is one of the most widely posted on the bible.
Mr. COLDW'ELL:	I am sorry the hon.
member has not a bible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have one, but I do
not keep it at the House. The hon. member for Broadview carries his around in his pocket all the time.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The hon. member *
should have his own.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I read from verse 25 of chapter 22:
And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by. Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemnefl?
Then the chief captain came and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.
And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

Canadian Citizenship
Paul was a citizen of the city of Tarsus and of the Roman province of Cilicia. He did not go back on his Roman citizenship. He was a citizen of the Roman empire. We are Canadians. Before long, I suppose, we shall be citizens of Canada legally, but it does not take away from us our right to be British citizens. We shall be British citizens as well as Canadian citizens.
I feel very strongly on this matter. The minister has not convinced me at all. I find myself in the same position as the members of St. George's Society, and of many other societies from whom I have had communications. I find myself in the same position as are the people to whom I talked during the Easter holidays. If I said I talked to a hundred people I should be understating it. If I said I talked to 250 during my tour of western Ontario last week I might be overstating it. However, I could not find one man among the lawyers, doctors, business men and educationists to whom I spoke, whose interpretation of the bill was any different from mine. Therefore a lot of clarification has to be done to make people realize that Britishers coming into Canada from any part of the empire are not compelled to remain here five years before they become Canadian citizens.
I have read the section over carefully; I have discussed it with all the lawyers on this side of the house. My hon. friend will have to admit that they are good lawyers; if I happened to get into a bad jam I do not know which one I would want to select to defend me. All of them interpret this section as I do, namely, that anyone coming into this country from any other part of the British empire would have to remain here five years before he would be entitled to become a Canadian citizen. To that I am opposed. It is a humiliation to ask a New Zealander, an Australian, a Scotsman, an Irishman, an Englishman, a Newfoundlander, or anyone from any other part of the British empire to remain here five years before Canadian citizenship papers can be taken- out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have had the same requirement for many years. All these countries have the same provision.
Mr. MacNICOL. I am not going to argue with the minister. If I told him he was wrong, it would be a nasty thing to say. But he will have to read the acts to me to prove that their provision is the same as this one.
The Anglo-Saxons who came to the riding of Davenport in 1911, 1912 and 1913-and perhaps some who came in 1910-voted in the 63260-64
election of 1911. When the first world war came, they enlisted en masse. I want it to be understood that no British subject shall be made to feel humiliated on coming to Canada because of being required to wait five years before becoming a Canadian citizen.
I want it clearly understood that I have the greatest love in my heart for people of all races. I have met people all over Canada of many different non-British races who have come to this country. Most of them have made good. The Secretary of State, in introducing the bill pointed out that the five year provision was to enable persons from nondemocratic countries to become accustomed to our laws, languages and methods of voting. I should not think anyone from a non-British ' European country would be offended at having to be here five years before becoming a Canadian citizen. Members of this House of Commons have come from some of those countries and are doing great work in this house and in Canada. But why ask anyone from Britain, the mother of parliaments, the mother of democracy, from which we took all our democratic institutions, to wait five years before becoming a Canadian citizen? They know all about it now. We do not need to tell them how to vote; we do not need to tell them what are British principles. Our fathers brought them over here and handed them on to us.


Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: Generally, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, but I should like to speak to one or two points in connection with it. First I should like to say a word or two in regard to the revocation of citizenship. I believe citizenship should not be lightly granted, but that once granted it should be practically irrevocable. This measure provides for the cancellation of Canadian citizenship in certain circumstances, including the commission of certain types of crimes. The last time this matter was under discussion the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) made a great point, of the fact a person of Japanese origin, and I think a Canadian citizen, had tortured some of our Canadian soldiers at Hong Kong. If Canadians commit crimes, let them be punished as Canadians. Let them be put in gaol as Canadians. If necessary let us shoot them as Canadians, but let us deal with them as Canadians. Let us accept responsibility for their upbringing and their environment.
Some would avoid such responsibility by a method of which as yet we have not had an example in this country; that is to say, by deportation. The other day I put a question on the order paper and was told that not a

Canadian Citizenship

single person of Japanese origin, Canadian citizen or otherwise, as yet had been deported from this country. But deportation is a dangerous policy. The force of circumstances and international conflicts make our friends of to-day our enemies to-morrow. I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Japanese, who were our deadly enemies in the war which has just come to a conclusion, were our firm friends and allies in the last war. If you make of citizenship a scrap of paper to be tom up at will, to be tom up in the panic and hatreds of war; if you deport people of one racial origin to-day, to-morrow you may be deporting people of another racial origin. What about the many fine Canadian citizens of German origin? Would this government propose to deport them? And who are our native Canadians, anyway, unless they be the Indians?-and we are not too sure about them. Let us think twice, then, before breaking our solemn word to people whom we have accepted as citizens of this country.
The second point I should like to make is that we should not be apologetic about being Canadians. In my opinion in the past we have suffered from a distinct inferiority complex. To-day in this country there are people, and even whole sections, still suffering from the same inferiority complex. It has plagued us in our arts and in our literature, and I think it extends even to our citizenship. Let us be proud of our own country. As the hon. member for Temis-couata, Mr. Pouliot is so fond of reminding us, this is the greatest country in the world. WHat, then, is the citizenship of which we should be so proud?. Well, as far as I am concerned it has nothing whatever to do with racial origin. I have been astonished to hear hon. members of this house boasting about the place of their birth. Could they tell us just what they had to do with it? if you were born in Canada it is a matter not for boasting but for thankfulness, particularly when we look at other countries and see how they and their people have been decimated by the flames of war. No; as I see it, citizenship should not be judged on the basis of racial origin. It is not just a racial ribbon to be worn on your coat. It means the contribution which one makes to the environment in which he finds himself. To me that is citizenship. It is the custom of my Tory friends to my right to protest their loyalty, but methinks they do protest too much.
Mr. FRASER; That is only your opinion.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am going to elaborate
on that. For instance, I shall not easily forget the last session of parliament when they
[Mr. Knight.)
bit so avidly upon the bait so skilfully thrown out by the hon. member to whom I have just referred, when he taunted them about the British coat of arms being "a circus in a garden which is not well kept," which by the way is one of the best similes I know of in the English language. I am not necessarily agreeing with the opinion of the hon. member, but in view of the interruption of the hon. gentleman to my right I thought I might repeat what he said. For days after that remark was made in this house we heard speeches from almost every Tory member about racial origin, racial pride, and, forsooth, the traditions of Belleville and of Brace county. Our Conservative friends wrap themselves at all times in the union jack; but what does the historical record show in regard to the attitude of this very party toward' for instance, allowing our English friends who are in dire need to enter our home market? Is there any loyalty to Britain there? Or how about their friends the manufacturers who at the outbreak of the war refused to manufacture war materials on the basis of cost plus a reasonable -profit, and who are now straining at the leash of price ceilings in order that they might exploit the home market? I suppose my hon. friends have an answer to that one. -


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Surely.


Mr. BROOKS:: It is too silly to answer.


Gordon Graydon: You are pretty intemperate; that is all I can say.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Ask the Minister of
Labour. He is smiling. They may have been his friends.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Having been so taunted
I think I shall have to reply. May I say that I too was born and bred a Tory. I was born in the northern part of Ireland, which incidentally is the only place in the world, except Ontario, where a Tory government still survives. Even there Toryism is about finished. "Cataline is at the gates." Toryism is an indigestible morsel in the body politic.


Gordon Graydon: What happened to the
C.C.F. in Ontario?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If you would like some
more I can give it to you. Let us go back to Ulster and the Tories. I come from that part of northern Ireland into which the English and Scottish Tories went and from which they drove the native Irish, whose lands they grabbed; and they have been grabbing everything else they could get their hands on ever since.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member had better go on with his speech.

Canadian Citizenship


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Those were the days when Cromwell was riding up and down the hills of Ireland singing psalms and cutting off Irish heads in the name of the Lord.
May I now say a word about the reluctance of some people to ask British subjects to go through some form of certification for Canadian citizenship? One would think British subjects would be delighted so to do-and I speak now about my own feelings in the matter. Strange to say, I too had intended to paraphrase St. Paul, before the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) did it, because I can say that I too am a British subject, having been in Canada for almost forty years. I too look forward to the day when there will be no doubt in the mind of anyone about my position or the position of my children in Canadian society. May I suggest that perhaps my Progressive Conservative friends' disinclination to undergo such certification is not necessarily a matter of practical affairs, but rather a whim of pride of race, and a bid for a preferred position in Canadian society.


Gordon Graydon: Let the Liberal party
speak for itself.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There should be no preferred position or preferred peoples in this country. Neither should there be any preferred province or provinces; we should all be on an equal footing. While I cannot condone, still I can understand the attitude of the Progessive Conservative party. I have already told hon. members I was born and reared among them, and I am now a renegade-and proud of it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You certainly are.


Gordon Graydon: And everybody is satisfied.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Let us have more of it. Speaking a moment ago the hon. member for Davenport said, "That is the kind of blood we want in this country." That talk irritates me-"the kind of blood we want in this country." Biologically speaking, of course, blood means nothing. I was much amused by a good English friend of mine who the other day was talking about his pure blood. I said to him, "Yes, that is true; but I suggest the source of the strength of the English nation may lie in its admixture of blood." Then I went over the long list who have made up the English people. While I could not recall all of them, from memory I referred to the Piets and the Scots, the ancient Britons, the Angles, the Jutes, the Saxons, the Danes. Then came the Normans, who brought with them the blood of the Gauls, the Norwegians and the Swedes. There were the Flemish 63260-64}
weavers who helped us to develop our textile industry. Since that day, too, England has been open to the refugees from all nations.


Major James William Coldwell: And do not forget the French Huguenots.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, and the French
Huguenots. That is your pure English blood.
I have no quarrel with English blood. It is good blood-just as good as mine.
Before resuming my seat I would ask the .minister, when he rises to speak, to clarify the position of citizens of Eire who would come to this copntry. There are many people who do not understand the difference between Ireland as a whole, and Eire and Ulster, which are parts of it, and quite independent of each other.
If I seem to say that British citizens do not necessarily make better Canadians^ do not misunderstand me. I believe they make just as good Canadians-and I say that in spite of the fact that at one time one could see in Winnipeg, as I did- in 1910, signs with the words "Men wanted; no Englishmen need apply". That was what I saw when I came there and was looking for a job. I am proud there are no signs like that in this country to-day. In fact, Englishmen, and particularly in the two great wars, have proved the kind of stuff of which they are made. No one can throw that kind of slander at them. I want to make my position perfectly clear.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) made a good point when he said that history had not yet proven that British people made better Canadians than other types did. His point was well taken.
I am not so sure that my fellow compatriots from the British isles are more easily assimilated. In fact we have living examples-I was almost going to say right here in the house- [DOT] of men who have boasted about their having lived in Canada for forty years, but who have not yet shown any striking aptitude for assimilation.
Since what I have said might be construed as an attack upon English-speaking Canadians, may I say to my Liberal French-speaking friends that to be good citizens we should not think too much in terms of one race or of one province. Rather we must think in terms of all the provinces, and as a collective whole. That, it seems to me, is the manner in which we must deal with this matter.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word because, like the hon. member who has immediately preceded me (Mr. Knight), I was born a British subject, in the United King-
Canadian Citizenship

dom, and came to this country about thirty-six years ago. I too remember the signs to which he referred-"Help wanted; no Englishmen need apply." I well remember the first job I held in this country, because after I had been in my position for three months I was told by the chairman of the school board which had hired me and asked me to renew my contract that, had they known I was an Englishman, I never would have stepped inside their school. That was in 1910. I am glad indeed to say that we have outlived that sort of thing; to-day those signs are absent.
I support the bill; I support it because it confers upon young men and women-and upon old men and women too, if they come here-the right to call themselves Canadian citizens. Even within the last two years, because I have nothing to show my Canadian citizenship I was described by a political opponent as "a foreigner". That was the description used by one of my friends of the Progressive Conservative party.


Thomas Reid: I have been called a foreigner by members of the House of Commons.


Major James William Coldwell: That may be so.


Thomas Reid: Members of your party called me that.


Mr. IRVINE:: Perhaps there was some excuse for that.


Major James William Coldwell: Any man who says that kind of thing, no matter to what political party he belongs, does not deserve to get anywhere through saying it.


Thomas Reid: I resented it.


Major James William Coldwell: My understanding is that the bill asks for nothing new. If through its operation one were to lose the right to vote, it would be in an entirely different category, and I would discuss it from a different point of view. I agree with the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) that subsequently the franchise and election acts may have to be changed to conform with the bill. That is within the realm of possibility, and when it so decides it is the right of parliament to make that change. We should discuss the matter in the light of circumstances which then exist. But if any such action is ever taken I should like to see a distinction made between those who come to Canada from a country in which the institutions and language are different from ours, and those who come from countries-and I use the plural-in which there are democratic institutions analogous to our own, whether the United States, the United Kingdom, or one of the commonwealth nations.

The hon. member for Davenport went to great lengths in discussing the desirability of bringing in 30,000 British people who have applied to come to this country. I should like to see them come, but I would remind the hon. member that the government he supported between 1930 and 1935 deported over 30,000 British citizens whose only crime against this country was that they could not find jobs and were on relief. I know that to be true; the records and statistics will bear out my statement. As a member of the city council of Regina at that time I know that when we applied to the federal authorities for certain assistance we were told that some of these people had to be deported because they were public charges. As public charges they were deportable within the five years that Sir Robert Borden laid down as the length of domicile which a British citizen must have in this country before he could not be deported. Let us not forget that when we hear this bill attacked on the ground that it is doing something entirely new which is endangering the rights of British citizens in this country. Let us bear in mind that that is not so, that the situation set out in this bill is a situation which has existed for a number of years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In principle from well before 1910, and the five years provisions since 1919.


Major James William Coldwell: That is true. I think the bill, particularly section 26, should be changed. I regret that the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke) is ill and cannot be present to-day. I agree with him when he says that this bill defines British citizenship and that we have no right to do that. I suggest to the minister that he adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Kindersley. We should consider a Canadian citizen as being a subject of His Majesty the King in the right of Canada. That would make the citizen of Canada a citizen of the British commonwealth of nations, which recognizes the same king but which recognizes also the divisibility of the crown and the sovereign as being the sovereign of each one separately of the nations that now comprise the British commonwealth. If this change were made there would be some validity in the argument raised by my hon. friend, and in that event I should like to see something placed in the bill which would give the British citizen the right to ask for and receive Canadian citizenship as a citizen of Canada in the right of His Majesty the King of Canada.


Mr. POULIOT:: As a Canadian subject.

Canadian Citizenship


Major James William Coldwell: As a Canadian citizen in the right of the King of Canada, that is a Canadian subject. He would be separate and distinct because the sovereign is separate and distinct. To my mind that is the way to view this. It would not for one moment affect our allegiance to a common sovereign, but it would make our citizenship what it ought to be, something distinct, something in which we can have pride as citizens of Canada.
I should like to go one step further. Anyone who comes to Canada should receive some certificate of citizenship. The length of residence need not be the same. It could be five years for those who are not used to our institutions; it could be one, two or three years for those who come from countries in which there are democratic institutions and language similar to our own. We cannot dodge the fact that there are two types of people who come to this country from other parts of the British commonwealth. There is the type of person who comes here to make Canada his home, who comes here to become a part of the great citizenship and family of Canada. This is the man who establishes his family in this country and intends to be in every respect a citizen of the country as long as he shall live. There are others who come here and stay one, two, five, ten or fifteen years but never regard this country as their homeland, and always look forward to the time when they can return home. Such a citizen has not the same loyalty to Canada as the one who makes this country his permanent home.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Chinaman.


Major James William Coldwell: I hear my hon. friend say, "the Chinaman." It is true that some Chinese have that conception, but some people who were bom in the country in which I was born also have the same conception. They came to this country never expecting to stay. I know many of them who have always regarded the little isles across the sea as the place to which they are going to return, their homeland. I think we should teach all our people that if this country is good enough to make a living in, if it is good enough to establish a home in, then their loyalty should be to the country in which they live. That would not take one thing away from the broader loyalty which we feel as citizens of that great family which we call the British commonwealth, independent citizens equal with one another, owing allegiance to the same king, with the same symbol of unity. To my mind that is the dignified position in which any Canadian, Australian, New Zealander or Britisher should find himself. Those of us who have been here for many years, who have established our homes in this country, would not receive anything to show that' we are citizens of this country. But those who come after us will, I am sure, appreciate some little ceremony which would give them recognition as members of this great Canadian family.
I want to support the bill because it does not, as it is now drafted, take away anything we now possess. If the change I have suggested is made, I should like to see another change made so that those who have the same institutions would not be required to put in the same length of time or apprenticeship to acquire Canadian citizenship.
I know why the five years' provision was put into effect. It was not put into effect so that we might deport someone, as my hon. friends of the Conservative party did in the days of the gloomy thirties. It was done in order to safeguard the health of our people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Precisely.


Major James William Coldwell: Immigrants should receive an examination as to mental ability and physical fitness, so thorough that we can accept them without the risk of having to deport them later on those grounds. There was some logic in having this provision when we did not have the facilities of examination that we now have.
I rose merely to express some of the things I feel as one who came to this country and who by long residence has been received into the Canadian family. I do not feel, as does the hon. member for Davenport, who was born here, that this is an insult to the people who were born elsewhere. Certainly as one of those who came here I do not consider it as an insult. My hon. friend says that as a Canadian bom he feels he is a Canadian citizen. I should like to feel that I have something to show, when I am called a foreigner, that I have been here long enough to qualify as a member of the Canadian family.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to make any lengthy observations with respect to the measure which is now before the house for second reading. But I wish to make as earnest, as strong and as emphatic a plea as I can for the adoption of what I believe to be the proper procedure with respect to this bill. In discussing matters such as citizenship quite often the people of this nation are subconsciously divided when there is really no real reason for division. I have always felt
Canadian Citizenship

I was fortunate in being able to approach subjects of this kind without very much heat, although on many occasions subjects have been brought forward in this connection where heat seems to have been very easily generated.
It always interests me to hear people talk as if they were better Canadians than other people, but I have never found it easy to find a dividing line and say that on this side the people are all good Canadians and on that side bad Canadians. Human nature is not built that way. There are very few people in this house of Commons who have a greater affection for the old British Isles than I have and I do not think anyone need ask me to apologize for that position, which I have taken a good many times. On the other hand I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the house that I do not think that that affection should be regarded by anybody in the house as making us any less a Canadian than anybody else in Canada. I like to think that it makes us as good Canadians in any event as anybody else. I am not one of those who believe that any class or section of our people have a monopoly on good Canadianism in this country. You find good Canadianism in all sections of Canada, and I hope that we shall find that condition to continue to exist through all the years.
I have often felt that we might perhaps take a leaf out of the book of the British people themselves in developing a love of country. One of the things which struck me when I was overseas for the first time last November, December and January was the great love of country that I saw displayed everywhere I went in the British Isles, and I liked that feeling. In these days when we are spreading ourselves very thin in the international field, some may regard it as not being in the interests of world unity to express our affection too loudly for our own people and our own country, but I am not so sure that that kind of doctrine holds water. I think that the best contribution which this country can make to the commonwealth, to the empire and to the world organization is to develop a united Canada, a great country of our own, and at the same time develop a great love and affection for this land of ours.
I noticed everywhere I went in Britain that the people had a great and consuming affection for that land and I would like to see in this country no less a consuming affection for our own country and for our own people than the British have for theirs. Because, Mr. Speaker, this is a great land, great not

only in its own right, but a great land to which the nations of the world are turning their eyes to-day as a country where people can live and find employment in the years that lie ahead. There is not a country in Europe where there are not thousands and scores of thousands of people who desire to emigrate to Canada. Why? Because this is regarded as one of the great lands of opportunity in the future world. If that is the view of other nations, surely it can be the view of a united Canadian people as well.
There comes to my mind at the moment an example of the type of affection I saw exhibited by the people of the old land for their own people and their own country. It was when we were leaving Southampton on one of the Clyde-built Queens, the Mary. There were on board at that time some 1,700 British war brides, with some 600 children, coming to rejoin on this side of the water American husbands whom they had married overseas. The scene left an indelible impression on my mind. As we left the dock at Southampton these girls lined the rails of the ship to take their last look at Britain and I have never seen as great a demonstration of affection not just for their families, their relatives and those who were close to them, but for their native land which they were leaving and which meant so much to them. I think in this country we do not do quite enough of that. We need to develop in Canada-I think we are all guilty in this respect, in most cases thoughtlessly guilty- the same kind of national pride, if you like, and I do not apologize for using that word, and the same kind of national affection for our country and for our people that has made the United Kingdom so great. You can perhaps rebuild devastated political structures; you can perhaps rebuild devastated economic structures, and these things are all-important in their place, but what is of the greatest national importance are the spiritual values in the nation itself. Those spiritual values comprise many things. One of the component parts of the spiritual values in this nation as in any other nation is the faith and confidence we have in ourselves as a nation and that love of country which has been so effective in building and maintaining and preserving other great nations of the world.
I make this appeal to the House of Commons this afternoon with great sincerity and with every emphasis at my command. I would like to see in the years that lie ahead the development in this country of a pride and an affection among ourselves for our own people and for our own country. I think in

Canadian Citizenship
the end that would mean a great deal and be the greatest contribution to the success of this nation and to its prestige in the empire and among the other nations of the world.
Before closing my rambling and very impromptu remarks this afternoon I would suggest to the minister that he give consideration now to the procedure to be followed in considering this bill. I regard this bill as a very important piece of legislation, so important that we cannot afford to toy with it. It is so important, that we cannot afford to give it anything less than our very best attention and the most careful consideration of which this house and parliament is capable. All through the years it has been the experience of most of us who have been in parliament for any length of time that with a very important measure such as this, with many sections and great detail, the procedure that has been found most successful and effective in bringing forward the best type of legislation is to refer the bill after second reading, where the importance of the measure warrants it, to a committee of the House of Commons. You ask why? I could give many reasons, but in this particular instance there are two that are of exceptional importance. If, as I understand, it is the government's intention, unless they change it, to bring the bill before the committee of the whole, there will be no opportunity to do more than examine the minister with reference to its various provisions. He will be before the committee of the whole, assisted, and ably assisted, by his deputy, and our questions will, of course, be answered from time to time. But that is not enough on a bill such as this. This bill requires the best that this house can give it, and the committee of the whole is not, in my opinion, the best machinery available to members for the consideration of the measure. We should have the benefit of the crossexamination, if you like, or at any rate the questioning of the members of his department and those particular officials who have been working on the bill, to see after careful review by a committee, such as that on external affairs whether we can come to a conclusion which in the years to come will render it unnecessary for other governments, for this government or for any other parliament in some other session, to amend the bill in any respect. I should like to see a good job done on the bill now, and I am not satisfied that the best job can be done under the procedure to which the minister now seems so wedded.
I would suggest as my second reason, and the minister must' of course be aware of this, that many points of view with respect to a
matter such as this ought, in my opinion to be aired, if that is the desire, then the members of any committee that might deal with the bill ought to be given an opportunity to consider those views, so that no stone would be left unturned in seeing that this is the best measure that can be brought forward on such a vital and important national subject as citizenship and nationality.
I am going to make an appeal to the minister. I know there are reasons against this course which to him may appear valid and cogent. But we, too, have some views as well, and views that are strongly held, which dictate the course that we now propose. I am going to ask the minister to reconsider the matter, to review the whole question of the government's policy with respect to the procedure now being adopted. If the minister will reflect carefully, if the government will look into' the matter from this point of view, they will see that by putting the bill before the committee of the whole instead of submitting it to a special committee they are doing less than justice to a bill to which, I submit, we cannot afford to do less than full justice, having in mind the special position it occupies in the legislation before this parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: I congratulate the hon. member for peel (Mr. Graydon) on his excellent speech. He spoke so well that I will send a copy of Hansard of to-day to his fine children. I cannot use the same exordium that some of my friends have used this afternoon. I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was not born in this country because you would not believe me. It has been refreshing, however, to listen to the debate this afternoon. There were, of course, things that were said with which we may all agree and others with which all may disagree.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who is a student, has the gift of natural legal perspicacity and he has quoted St. Paul. He did not discourse on theology when he made that reference, but St. Paul was a Roman soldier and at the time he wrote the passage which my hon. friend read from a book that belongs to a mutual friend of ours, St. Paul was a citizen of the Roman empire outside Rome, outside Italy, because he was living in one of the colonies of Rome. There is another thing my hon. friend the member for Davenport has forgotten.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He does not forget much.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but he has forgotten something that is very important. He has forgotten the fall of the Roman empire which occurred between the time that St. Paul wrote
Canadian Citizenship

that verse and this date, the 29th of April, 1946, when the hon. member read it to us. It occurred some time ago. It is a law of history that empires rise and fall. We hear no more now of Babylon; we hear no more of Persepolis; and it is surprising that Persia is talked about so much at the present time. However, it has adopted a different name.
The hon. member for Peel spoke of good Canadian citizens. There are some people in this country who are good citizens but who are not good Canadian citizens. They may say at times that they are Canadians and I will not say that they have not spiritual values and do not believe in spiritual values. But what is missing is the Canadian spirit, which should be the spirit of all Canadian members in both houses of parliament.
How many members of the Progressive Conservative party are imbued with that Canadian spirit? Whenever a member speaks of Canada, as the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) did so well, everybody is puzzled. They say: "How can he speak of Canada? We are citizens of the British empire; we are citizens of the British commonwealth." Some members who are gifted and intelligent protested when the hon. member for Saskatoon City spoke. They could not understand that a member of parliament could say that he was a Canadian and that owing to that fact it did not mean that he was antiBritish.
Some members do not have the Canadian spirit because they have the spirit of subservience to Britain. They deserve only one thing. They deserve the contempt of good Britishers. What the hon. member for Peel said is perfectly true, namely, that the Englishman loves his home; the Englishman loves his country. I have many friends among the British-bom who love Canada more than England now that they are settled here. They are better Canadians than many people who have been bom here. This is not the first time I have said that. They put to shame all the fire-eaters that we have in this house and outside this house and who represent only a handful of citizens of this country. I can speak with a little more ease and freedom than I could during the war. At that time these men who were such imperialists deserved only the contempt of those who were true to the British tradition. This I repeat because in my fan mail I receive letters from all over, letters signed by English-speaking Canadians, some of whom were bom here and; some others were born in the British isles or in the dominions. Your Honour would be surprised at the Canadian spirit that I find in these letters and at
	.
the condemnation of the imperialism shown by some leaders of thought. What surprises and dumbfounds me is the utter ignorance of the so-called well-read in this country. I hold in my hand; a report of a lecture which was given by the president of a university in Montreal last year. He was the president of a great university; I mean great in size. It is not a university of Quebec, it is outside it. University men are presumed to be, rightly or wrongly, giants of thought. They may be compared with columns of light that dissipate all the darkness of the thinking universe. Leaving aside all artifice of literature, hyperbole, one will agree that the first duty of university men is to teach youth. On that point we must expect, especially if they are professors, that their knowledge should be at least equal to that of their average students. Without necessarily being living encyclopedias, the heads of our universities, those realms of learning, should have at least a little bit of general culture. Those were my reflections when I read the report of that lecture given by that university president on the burning subject of national unity.
We should not be ashamed of our history, and all Canadians worthy of the name should know it well. Alas, the history of Canada is a jewel-box of ignored pearls, de faits ignores. An investigation made by a great daily of the city of New York has shown that all those who have degrees from United States universities totally ignore the history of their country. In all countries history is the cornerstone of patriotism, and patriotism is the only possible basis of lasting national unity or national good understanding. To appreciate to their value our liberties which have been so dearly won, no Canadian has the right to ignore the fights of the pioneers and the missionaries for the advancement of civilization and the sacrifices that our common ancestors have made for responsible government and freedom of religion.
This university president started by declaring that it should not be forgotten by those who doubt the reality or the continuance of Canadian unity that Canada is the only American country that has not been subjected to a revolution or a civil war. Did he tear the glorious pages which tell of the exploits of the heroes of 1837-38? It is very difficult to think that a man of such standing could deform and falsify history, and it is the more surprising when it comes from the head of a university. Then he went on to say:
Canadians should be proud of the heritage of Canada and should look forward with confidence to a united Canada taking her place as one of the foremost nations of the world.

Canadian Citizenship
That is very fine, but how can Canada get there? Canada, he went on to say, on many occasions has taken a leading part in the British Empire, and took a leading part in formulating the Statute of Westminster which transformed the British empire into the British commonwealth of nations. That is a commonplace saying we hear on all sides. The statute of Westminster is just bunk. It was a concoction prepared by Sidney Webb, otherwise called Lord Passfield, who was a labour lord. I cannot conceive of a labour lord, but he was one. It has changed nothing in our constitution; it has just given us the illusion of autonomy, as the British government keeps the right to disallow all the legislation we pass here, even two years after its adoption. But to use the language of the president of this great university, how can Canada take her rank among the first nations of the universe as long as she has that string on her foot? Then he said:
Second only to Great Britain in that commonwealth, this country must exercise its privileges and assume its responsibilities as one of the senior partners of the commonwealth.
Nothing is more complicated, according to this university president. Canada is one of the senior partners of the commonwealth. She comes to the first rank of nations of the universe, but in second place to Great Britain. It is very strange. One day I asked the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) what was the difference between "empire" and "commonwealth", and he replied that the two expressions were interchangeable; in other words that they had the same meaning, with the exception that "commonwealth" was more pompous than "empire."


Major James William Coldwell: Is that what he said
or what you are saying?


Jean-François Pouliot: He said they were interchangeable, but they can be interchangeable only if they have the same meaning.


William Irvine: But were you quoting?


Jean-François Pouliot: I was quoting the Right
Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, who said that the words "British empire" and "British commonwealth of nations" were interchangeable. Since then the universe has been divided into great and small countries. The great countries decide everything; but to console the others and to caress the vanity of our statesmen it has been said that Canada would head the small countries, the dwarf countries. What an honour! It is only the great countries, the big powers, that reach the all-important decisions,
and the conclusions at which they , arrive have great weight when they are considered by all the united nations.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the hon. member
quoting the professor now or making his own statement?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that this is a second quotation from the Prime Minister in reply to a second question I put to him. I asked about Teheran and Cairo; I asked if Canada was represented there, and he said no. I asked further if Canada had anything to do with the decisions reached by the big powers when they met together, when we were not invited to be present.


John Horne Blackmore: At Teheran or at some other conference?


Jean-François Pouliot: All the conferences. I think I mentioned Teheran and Cairo, and he replied that what is decided by the big powers has great weight with the united nations. In fact we decide nothing. We are the trailer that follows. We are like the little porpoise that goes along following the mother porpoise.


Mr. HANSELL:: Is that still a quotation?


Jean-François Pouliot: No; this is not a quotation at all.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member is talking colonialism now, is he not?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will come to that for
my hon. friend in one moment. No; I am talking of porpoises; I am talking of fisheries. The rule to the effect that all are equal before the law does not apply to the meetings of the big powers, or even to the meetings of the united nations, because it is only those who are on the security council who have their say.
I should like that university president, who was once mentioned as a prospective leader of the Conservative party, to enumerate the privileges and responsibilities of Canada as the senior partner of the British commonwealth. We would know better what he meant. But the language of those who pose as propagandists of national unity is never clear. They are preaching in the desert, so long as the majority of the population will not admit that the duty of all Canadians is to recognize Canada as their own country, and to promote the interests of Canada before those of any other country.
Such is the only true and lasting basis of what is called national unity, but should be called national good understanding. In answer to the hon. member for Lethbridge,
Canadian Citizenship

I will tell him that I do not agree or disagree with the bill. In my view it is premature. I do not think those who are ready to give all our wealth to another country, without asking anything in return, should have the right to call themselves Canadian citizens.


John Horne Blackmore: Are there any such? Mr. POULIOT: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Can the hon. member name one?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend himself.


John Horne Blackmore: That is entirely wrong.


Jean-François Pouliot: It may be wrong, but I have explained it.


John Horne Blackmore: I challenge the hon. member to find any evidence of that in Hansard.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is ready to put his head on the block when the British empire is mentioned.


John Horne Blackmore: That is utterly false.


Jean-François Pouliot: He has a right to sacrifice himself on the altar of the country; so has the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) who objected the other day to Canada Day. They should pair. We have some of them on our side and there are some on the other side. There are some for whom I have respect, and even admiration, because they are frank and honest. The hon. member for Davenport, for instance, is honest, and I have respect and admiration for him. He will never say he is not an imperialist. He will repeat the words of Sir John A. Macdonald, "A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die." The hon. member belongs in the category of good citizens; but he cannot call himself a Canadian citizen. He cannot do that, although he does say something for Which a Canadian citizen should be congratulated. He is a most difficult case; I cannot understand him.
Here is my genial friend the hon. member for Lethbridge, whom everyone likes. He is an imperialist to the core, and cannot call himself a Canadian citizen.


John Horne Blackmore: In your opinion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, certainly.


John Horne Blackmore: Born in the United States; does that prevent my being-


Jean-François Pouliot: No, that is not it. A man may be bom in China; he may be bom in Africa, and he may be a good Canadian-[DOT]


John Horne Blackmore: Why not talk sense, instead of that nonsense you are talking?


Jean-François Pouliot: I can speak about China, and talk sense at the .same time. My hon. friend must not forget that China is the country that first put holes in buttons, and also invented gunpowder. It was the first civilized country in the world.


John Horne Blackmore: Has that something to do with Canadian citizenship?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, it has. I will
explain that to my hon. friend.


John Horne Blackmore: I am beginning to see through your nonsense.


Jean-François Pouliot: As my hon. friend is an imperialist to the core, he is a fellow citizen of all the Asiatics in Asia who are under British domination and all the negroes in Africa who are under British domination. But for me, as a British subject, if I am a Canadian I am a fellow citizen only of those Chinese who live here, and only of those negroes who live here. That makes a great difference.
Beside that, I think of my own people, and those people include the hon. member for Lethbridge. I want him to be happy, in preference to someone who may not be living in Canada now. I know that my hon. friend has made Canada his home and that he is a good citizen. But I am very sorry I cannot call him a Canadian citizen, for the simple reason that he wants to be more imperialist than Canadian. That is not the sort of pride a real Canadian should have, a condition I regret deeply.
He should have pride in his adopted country, the country of his choice, the country in which he wishes to live with his children. One must prefer that country to any other country in the world. I do not believe in hybrid citizenship.


John Horne Blackmore: Did you give a son in the war for Canada?


Jean-François Pouliot: My son is only eight years old, but if my hon. friend represents the Canadian attitude, probably the boys of eight will be called in the next war-and it will not take long.
However, I am not discussing citizenship with my hon. friend.
Mr. HANSELL. But you are implying that he is disloyal to Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not say he is not loyal to Canada.


Ernest George Hansell: That is your implication.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Macleod knows very well that it is not possible to discuss this matter-and we now

Canadian Citizenship
have evidence of it in the present discussion. The bill is premature. If at the same time we are Canadian citizens-and the hon. member for Macleod is a good Canadian citizen; I will give him credit for that-


Ernest George Hansell: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: When we hear expressions of opinion, as we have since the beginning of this session, then in view of section 26 I say we cannot pass this bill, because it has been put there to appease those who are non-Canadians.
When I say to the hon. member for Lethbridge that he is a non-Canadian in spirit, it is true that his body is here and his mind is here, but his heart is not.


John Horne Blackmore: And is he different from the hon. member from Macleod?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes.


John Horne Blackmore: In what respect?


Jean-François Pouliot: Because the hon. member for Lethbridge has crossed the fence, in his love of the empire.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to produce from Hansard any evidence to support the unjustified remarks he is making. I am amazed at his outburst this afternoon, and that an hon. member should have to sit here and listen to that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will go to the library, produce and table all those copies of Hansard since the hon. member is a member of parliament. I do not have them at hand now, but I will table them, and my hon. friend will find in his speeches the true expression of what I have told him.
T do not say this in an offensive way. My colleagues are kind to me, and I do not wish to be unpleasant to them. However, I do not believe in this stuff, and I believe it is before us precisely to distract the attention of the people of Canada from the loan to Britain. The same is true of the flag. It is a flag which means nothing. We might better keep the union jack, to show our real colours. So long as the people of Canada have not a Canadian spirit this citizenship bill amounts to nothing. The Canadian flag amounts to nothing because it will not be a Canadian flag. It is impossible to discuss it here. There was a storm raised the other day when it was suggested that Dominion day should be changed to Canada day. I congratulate the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote) upon his move. That is something that should have been done as a routine matter but
it raised a storm in this house. Hon. members were scandalized; they said it was not loyal. I am just as loyal as anybody to His Majesty the King whom I revere and respect, but I do not think I should be expected to be any more loyal than he is himself. We should not take up time in discussing this matter of a hybrid citizenship when we have more important matters to deal with. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, let us be subjects of His Majesty the King in his capacity as King of the realm of Canada, an expression that His Majesty used himself in the senate chamber.
We do not find many people talking about the realm of Canada; it is said that we should not speak about the kingdom of Canada or the realm of Canada, but those words came from the mouth of His Majesty the King. There is an element here that rejoices in servitude, in serfdom and in slavery of mind. They are so narrow-minded that they cannot conceive of Canadianism existing as a noble sentiment.
We do not have a Canadian spirit; therefore this bill is premature. I cannot see how a man who is an imperialist can be proud of being a Canadian subject of His Majesty the King. The first thing he will deny is the divisibility of the crown; he will say that the King is King of the United Kingdom, that it is to the United Kingdom that he owes allegiance. That is true. Sometimes a member of parliament is also mayor of his municipality. When he presides at a sitting of the municipal council he does not preside in his capacity as a member of parliament; he presides at that council in his capacity as mayor of the municipality. When he sits here it is not in his capacity as mayor of his home town; he sits here as a duly elected member of parliament. That shows that a man can fulfil two different functions. According to what His Majesty said in the senate chamber he will be just as proud to bear the title King of Canada as he is to bear the title of King of any other part of the world. By the way, he is already King of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and all the British possessions overseas, which include Canada.
, Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt ' the hon. gentleman but he has spoken for over forty minutes.


John Horne Blackmore: Go ahead.


Jean-François Pouliot: I like you very much.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to say only a few words on this bill. At the outset may I say that I am a Canadian in order there will be no misunderstanding on
Canadian Citizenship

that point. If I happen to mention England and the British empire I do not do so because I am a great imperialist, but because I have great respect and regard for both. I have enjoyed listening to this debate. It has been logical in most cases and I have marvelled at the study and research which has been carried on by hon. members. The principles of the bill have been thoroughly discussed for some time and it will not be necessary for me to take up much of the time of the house this afternoon.
Some hon. members have said that the first real Canadians came from the province of Quebec. I do not think I can agree entirely with that, but I do agree that some very fine Canadians have come from the province of Quebec. The first Canadians, if we may call them such, were the Indians who resided in this country when the first white men came. When we try to go back to the time of the arrival in Canada of the first white men I think we in the maritimes can claim that the first white Canadians settled there. In recalling our history we shall remember that the first white settlement was founded at Port Royal in Nova Scotia, the city of Quebec being founded, I believe, four or five years afterwards.
I was amazed to hear some hon. members claim that because they had been called foreigners, having come from the old country, therefore, that was an argument in support of this bill. I should like to refer them, not too seriously, to what we are called in the maritimes. Possibly the minister will contend that when this bill is passed we shall not be called these names any more. For instance, the citizens of Nova Scotia have been called blue-noses for a great many generations. We in New Brunswick are called herring-chokers and over in Prince Edward Island they are known as spud-islanders or some such appellation as that. I hope, after this bill is passed, we shall all be known as Canadians pure and simple.
My chief object in rising is to voice objection to that section which requires a British subject to be in this country for five years before he can become a Canadian citizen. It occurred to me a few weeks ago when the new governor general of this dominion arrived in this country, a man who had a very distinguished record! in private life and who was one of the most outstanding generals during the last war, if he had come here as a private individual seeking entry into this country and hoping to become a citizen he would have had to wait for five years under the provisions of this bill in order to become a Canadian citizen. tMr. Brooks.]


Paul Joseph James Martin: The same situation has existed for the last twenty-seven years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have not had the bill
for the last twenty-seven years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the Immigration Act
a five years' residence was necessary.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There were certain privileges which he would have had.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And which he still has.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But which the minister
intimated this afternoon would probably be taken away.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said just the opposite, that they would not be taken away.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I heard the minister refer
to the franchise act, and' my understanding of what he said was that an amendment to the franchise act woilld be based on Canadian citizenship, which would require five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said the very opposite ;
I said there is no intention on the part of this government to change the elections act following the passage of this bill.


Gordon Graydon: They may do that at another session.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If there is no reason for changing the franchise act I do not see any reason for the provision that a British subject must be in this country for five years before he can become a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sir Robert Borden was the
one who decided that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I can understand that there are certain reasons why people coming from foreign countries should be in this country.for five years. They have not our language and it takes five years to learn the English or the French language. Many of these people have been in this country for twenty years and have not learned the English language. When I hear some Englishmen and Scotsmen who have been in this country for more than five years I realize that they will have to be in Canada for almost all eternity before they will be able to speak the English language as it is spoken here.
Again, our customs throughout the British empire are very much the same, so that people coming from other parts of the British commonwealth of nations do not have to learn the customs of the Dominion of Canada because they know them already; their own customs are the same. So that both the language and the customs arguments fall to the ground. It

Canadian Citizenship
is not necessary on either of these counts to compel a British subject to wait for five years for his citizenship papers in Canada.
Then we come to the possible argument requiring him to know the history of Canada.
I think the history of the commonwealth is taught in all British schools, so that people coming here from other parts of the commonwealth would have a knowledge of the history of this country.
The only argument that remains, and the minister mentioned it this afternoon, is the argument on health. The minister speaks of Sir Robert Borden, who was prime minister nearly forty years ago. Have we stood still all that time? Is it necessary to take five years to determine whether the health of a person is such as to qualify him to become a citizen of this country? That argument, too, falls to the ground' on the statement of the minister himself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what the
medical advisers say.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have not heard from any medical advisers in this house. All we have is the minister's word now. It did not take five years to determine whether a man offering himself for enlistment was physically fit to join the army and fight in defence of this country. That did not take five years, nor five months. So that I do not think the health argument is a sound one on which to base this five-year provision in the bill.
Despite what the minister says, I am satisfied that this measure will become the foundation of other acts in the future, such as the franchise act. I am satisfied that it will result in taking away the right which has been enjoyed by people coming from other parts of the British commonwealth and the British empire to vote in this country one year after they arrive.
I see no logical reason, therefore, on the ground of language, customs, history or health for making this a five-year period.
Other hon. members have spoken of Canadian soldiers in the two wars. I do not believe that the passing of this bill is going to do away with all this hyphenated Canadianism. The mere passage of a bill cannot do away with that sort of thing. It goes much deeper than that. In the two wars Canadians got together, fought together, slept together, played together. In that way they learned to break down all prejudices that there were between men of different races and from different sections of this country, and that is the only way in which these prejudices, can be
broken down. It cannot be done merely by the passing of a bill, but by young men from all parts of Canada associating with and learning to know each other. I would suggest that the young people in our schools in one province should visit the young people attending school in another province. For instance, boys from Quebec could go to Ontario and Ontario boys go to Quebec; maritimers go west and westerners go east, and so on. In that way the young people of this dominion would leam something about conditions in the other provinces and get to know people living in other parts .of the dominion. In that way in time we would have a united country. I do not believe that that can be done simply by passing a bill of this kind. The unity of the Canada of the future depends on the sympathetic understanding of all peoples comprising our population.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge). Mr. Speaker, I think it would help a little in this house if we appointed a committee to draw up in detail a definition of what is an imperialist and probably appointed another committee to draw up a definition in detail of what constitutes a Canadian. I have sat here now for ten years trying to get some sort of idea of what is an imperialist and what is a Canadian. I thought I knew all about it ten years ago before I came into parliament, and I still believe I know about it. But there is a great disagreement among members of this house as to what constitutes an imperialist and what constitutes a Canadian. I have an idea that this is causing more disunity at the present time than any other one thing. If a person cannot support the unity and greatness of the British empire, if he has to stand on the floor of this house and advocate the destruction of the British empire-


Mr. RINFRET:: Who did so?


John Horne Blackmore: If he has to do that in order to be a Canadian-


Mr. LESAGE:: Who did so?


John Horne Blackmore: I am not saying that anybody did so.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I should like to recall to hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted, and the hon. member who has the floor should address himself to the Chair.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the interruptions. This sore has been festering for quite a long time and maybe we have reached the point where it has come to a head and ought to be lanced. I resent to
Canadian Citizenship

the depths of my being some of the remarks made this afternoon. They were utterly unjustifiable.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask my hon. friend a question. Would he tell Mr. Speaker whether he considers the word "imperialist" offensive?


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to know
whether anybody can give a definition of "imperialist" that will be acceptable to the house. I do not think anybody here can give a definition of that word that would be acceptable to the house, and I doubt, after listening to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), that anybody can give a definition of what constitutes a Canadian that will be acceptable to the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: A man who helps Canada more than any other country.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, but I would remind him that, as I have said before, on the second reading the principle of the bill should be discussed.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing I can say, and that is that if a member cannot answer an attack which has been made upon him in debate, if one mem-, ber is free to make an attack and go completely off the subject in making that attack, and then the member attacked is debarred from the right of defending himself in the same debate, certainly it is time that some change was made in the rules of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: There was no attack, and you can speak for thirty minutes more.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to voice my opposition to the section of this bill which requires a British subject to be in this country for five years before he can take out his citizenship papers. I wish to know if that holds good in Great Britain. Suppose a Canadian goes to Great Britain to live; does he have to wait for five years before he receives his citizenship papers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does he not in Australia and New Zealand?


Norman Jaques: I am asking the question. What is the purpose of this?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is asking a question when there is no opportunity of replying to it specifically now that we are debating the second reading. If that is all the hon. gentleman has to say, I would suggest that he raise the question 
when we reach that particular section of the bill, when there will be ample opportunity to answer fully any questions regarding the section.


Norman Jaques: Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say two or three words on the remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who no doubt speaks for a large number of members from Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Norman Jaques: Well, it sounds like that. This insistence on Canadian nationality, of which we hear so much, the insistence that we must be independent, is all right. But why are not these "Canadian nationalists" more consistent? Last session when we were discussing the Bretton Woods measure, which means nothing less than the surrender of Canadian sovereignty and therefore Canadian independence, where was their Cana-dianism? They all voted for it. They do not mind being under the control of Wall street or under the control of international finance. That seems to be all right. Well, I would rather be a sovereign part of the British empire. That would prove a great deal safer and more satisfactory to Canadian citizens.
Perhaps I should wait to ask the other questions I have in mind, but for the moment I will say that, with regard to the five-year provision, the only reason I can see for it is that it is perhaps planned to bring in a great many aliens-I will not be more specific than that-and unless immigrants are all treated alike, that is to say, if people from the British isles are to be citizens as soon as they get here and aliens are not, possibly the government and the Secretary of State -fear they might be accused of racial discrimination. I will not be more specific than that. Perhaps the minister will answer questions when the bill is in committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In closing the debate, I am sure I express the views of every member of the house when I say that the measure, one admittedly of great importance, has been debated on all sides of the house with a considerable degree of thoroughness, both as regards the subject matter involved and in other respects; and one of the most remarkable circumstances, in my opinion, is that on all sides, from every party, there has been a unanimous expression of approval of the bill itself. That, I think, reflects the determination of this house to give expression to the common conviction and desire which all Canadians have of being able to assert in law as well as in fact that they are citizens of this country.
At six#o'clock the house took recess.

Canadian Citizenship
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In concluding this debate
it was not my intention to make any protracted statement, and perhaps in some respects it may not be necessary in the light of the fact that the measure has received such wide approval in principle from all sections of the house; but because during the course of the debate attention has been paid to two points in the bill, and because on account of the rules of the house there was no opportunity to make a full statement with regard to some of the points made by hon. gentlemen opposite, it does seem desirable to take advantage of this opportunity to correct certain misapprehensions which have been expressed during the, course of the debate.
As the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said to-day, the measure before the house is an important one. It was carefully studied by a committee of the departments of External Affairs, Justice, Immigration and the Department qf the Secretary of State. I wish to pay tribute to-night to a number of men from these departments who were associated with me over many weeks in the preparation of this important measure. We had the advantage of having before us not only our own proposals but also the studies made by a former secretary of state to whom I made reference in this debate when I moved second reading.
First of all, I should like to express my gratification at the degree of unanimity and approval that has been shown in the speeches which have been made. I think it would not be too much to say that almost every hon. member has approved the principle embodied in the bill. This is of particular importance in a measure of this kind; for it might be called an organic measure, a measure that will go into and become part of the basic legal framework of Canada. The highest possible degree of general approval is always of greatest importance for such a fundamental piece of legislation.
In addition, however, there is the fact that this bill is intended to aid in creating a sense of unity and oneness in Canada, a feeling of community. A bill to create unity must not be based on disunity and disagreement. It is therefore particularly pleasing -to see the measure of support which the bill has been receiving.
I do not wish to discuss the general aspects of the bill at any length at this time, but there are two parts of it which have caused some discussion and to which I would wish to make reference. The portions I have in mind
are embodied in sections 10 and 26 of the bill. The parts of section 10 that have received particular attention are the requirements which are imposed by way of qualification and procedure on non-Canadian British subjects who desire to become Canadian citizens. The question in relation to section 26 is whether the bill should provide that the status of British subject continues for Canadian citizens. In my opening statement I said that this bill parallels the development of Canada as a nation. I repeat that statement.
This bill cannot and does not seek to meet extreme points of view which in some instances have been expressed in this house. There are extreme positions that can be taken in connection with these points. At one end of the scale there is the desire to reduce the qualification and procedure for non-Canadian 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 subject should be eliminated with regard to Canadian citizens. These are extreme points of view. The present bill does not go to either extreme. For that reason it does not secure complete approval from either of the groups of opinion to which I have referred. The bill falls in between that. It assumes a middle position, and I think a reasonable position, one that enjoys, I believe, a greater measure of general support among the Canadian people than either of the more extreme positions would elicit.
First of all let me refer to the position of the non-Canadian British subjects. Particular criticism has been directed against the requirement of five years' residence, and against the procedure involved in the acquisition of a certificate. Before examining these matters, let me. state categorically what I have said before by way of interjection and by way of my statement at the opening of the debate, but what has so frequently been ignored or forgotten, that the bill will not and does not remove one iota of the rights and privileges that are now enjoyed by British subjects in Canada. A British subject over twenty-one has now the right to vote. He will continue to have that right to vote after this bill is passed. A British subject is eligible for an old age pension. He will continue to be eligible for an old age pension after the bill is passed. A British subject is eligible for appointment to the civil service. He will continue to be eligible for such appointment after the bill is passed.
Canadian Citizenship

The rights that British subjects now have will remain in full. None is taken away by this bill or reduced in any respect. They remain precisely as they are. The bill does not affect the status of British subjects in any way; it merely regulates the method of becoming Canadian citizens.
Moreover, under the bill-and no attention has been paid to this fact-all those British subjects now in Canada who have domicile will become citizens of Canada on the passage of this bill. The wives of soldiers, the war brides who are coming and who will be coming to Canada in the next few months, will automatically become Canadian citizens under this bill. These two facts have not been emphasized.
The suggestion has been made from one extreme quarter that this bill was an attempt to violate Canada's relationship to the commonwealth. No reference was made by these, hon. gentlemen to the provision of section 26 of the bill winch in its precise terms are more definite than will be found in any corresponding legislation in any other part of the commonwealth. On the other hand, those who took exception to the fact that the bill provides that Canadian citizens shall be designated British subjects failed to recogize that the paramount status in the bill is the status of being able to say, "I am a Canadian citizen."
No one can envisage the future. In 1919, when Sir Robert Borden changed the provision from three years to five years, he was faced within his own party by the very sort of argument which has been used by some hon. gentlemen during this debate. The rights- of British subjects were not changed by the amendments brought in by the government of Sir Robert Borden, any more than they will be changed to-day. This parliament, representing as it does the temper, the opinion and the conviction of the Canadian people, will always be guided by the character of Canada, a free nation within the British commonwealth. In some references which have been made to the bill, it has been suggested that the five-year requirement is something new, which never existed 'before. In actual fact it is nothing of the sort. The requirement of five years' residence as it applies to British subjects is exactly the same to-day as it has been since 1919. Thus it is simply a continuation of the existing provision.
In essence, citizenship is made up of a collection of rights and duties that pertain to a particular status. Some of the rights are internal to the state involved, and some are external. The former group are fairly clear: the right to own property, the right to vote,

the right of appointment to. particular positions, the right to pension and so forth. The external rights are also fairly clear. Normally they include the right to be admitted into the country on coming to its boundaries, the right to diplomatic and consular protection and assistance, the right to a passport and so forth. As far as Canada is concerned, the internal rights, if I may call them such, are accorded to British subjects on the same basis as to Canadian citizens. As I have already emphasized, none of this will be changed with the passage of this bill. As far as the external rights are concerned, the one normally most important is the right of entry, and for almost half a century this right has been limited to Canadian citizens and other persons having their domicile here. The British subject who comes to the shores of Canada has no right of entry. If he is admitted to Canada as an immigrant and lives here for five years he becomes a Canadian citizen under the Immigration Act, and only then does he have an automatic right to come into Canada.
When this requirement of a number of years of residence was first imposed the period was two years. That was prior to 1910. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was perhaps the only hon. member who very properly pointed out that this period was required for certain reasons, mainly health and to avoid the mischief of individuals whose records were clearly those of criminals. The period was required in order to give the immigration authorities a chance to see whether the person was desirable to have as a Canadian; whether he was sound in body and mind; whether he had criminal tendencies, and so on. Later, the two-year period was found to 'be too short, and in 1910, at the request of the provinces it was extended to three years. However, as I said earlier, this also was found to be inadequate and in 1919 a Conservative government under the leadership of Sir Robert Borden extended the period from three to five years, where it has remained ever since. In short, for over a quarter of a century we have required five years' residence of a British subject before granting him a right of entry.
Perhaps one more word might be said on this point. Obviously a bill such as that now before the house must be related to the Immigration Act. When we come to deal with this particular section my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), speaking as Minister of Immigration, will relate to the house some of the difficulties being experienced by his department, and will show statistically how important this provision really is. I may say frankly that

Canadian Citizenship
when the bill was being discussed we had taken the position that it might be desirable to reduce the period, but that met with objections on the part of the officers of the department of immigration. They are by no means, by their own traditions, men who can be said to be inimical to the interests of the British commonwealth. Every hon. member knows from what part of the world came the commissioner of immigration, who has to administer this measure. Everyone, of course, knows the origin of the Minister of Mines and Resources, if there should be any doubt about my own sincerity in the matter. But from the point of view of administration, having in mind the desirability that we should not be saddled with people who had criminal records, people who were of criminal tendencies or people who had mental difficulties not ascertained or ascertainable at the time of entry; having in mind that provincial institutions were being called upon to take care of many of these people, it was felt desirable that we should not be saddled within one or two or three years with the burden of maintaining them, when for the greater part of their lives they had resided elsewhere.
I think the relevance of what I have said will be apparent, for it completes the picture with regard to British subjects and makes it clear that their rights have not been changed in the present bill. The rights that British subjects have enjoyed, as British subjects, will continue to be theirs; they do not have to be Canadian citizens in order to secure them. On the other hand, the right of entry, which hitherto they have been able to obtain after five years of residence, will continue.to be theirs after five years of residence. The time element is nothing new; it is no change whatsoever. It does not alter the position of a British subject; it merely perpetuates a situation which has prevailed in this countiy for over a quarter of a century.
During the debate the question was asked: "Why should it be necessary to give a certificate of citizenship to a non-Canadian British subject?" Well, I could understand that attitude on the part of someone who perhaps has had no experience in the administration of the immigration department, or the administration of the Department of the Secretary of State, or the administration of the Department of External Affairs, or to a lesser extent, the administration of the Department of Justice. But let me give the house one case that came to my attention only after six o'clock this afternoon. A few days ago the daughter of a well known missionary of the United Church, who had been in China for
over twenty-three years, proceeded to the United States to attend university. She had never lived in this country. Her father had been born in the United Kingdom and had come to Canada, where he was ordained in the United church ministry and almost immediately thereafter went to China. Under the laws of China that girl is a citizen of that country. She is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, but she is a citizen of Canada. She was on her way to a particular university in the United States, but in the middle of the night an immigration officer instructed her to get up and prepare to answer certain questions. Later, she was put off the train because she could not prove to that officer that she was a citizen of Canada. She had nothing by way of documentary proof to show that she was not, even in her own mind, a citizen of China. Will anyone say that under those circumstances we should perpetuate that kind of injustice? As my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources will show later on, the immigration department is full of cases of that sort, clearly indicating that in the interests of justice itself to thousands of individuals it is wholly desirable that they should have documentary proof of the citizenship which the existing law or which this measure will give them.


Gordon Graydon: Is that not the case we had up a year or so ago?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; that is a case which occurred last Thursday, I believe, and came to my attention only this $,fternoon.


Mr. HAZEN:: Would we not have a conflict of laws there? Could she not be a citizen of China?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is quite right. She could be a citizen of China. There are cases where people are citizens of no less than seven countries. My attention has been called to a case before the war of a citizen of another country who, under the laws of eleven different countries, was a citizen of those countries.
We cannot deal with the kind of status determined by other countries, except by our own law to do all we can to avoid two things, namely to avoid statelessness and dual nationality, or nationality of several kinds.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is what the underling in the United States did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am just reciting that as an instance.


Arthur Leroy Smith: But that is what you are stating.
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am just reciting that as one case in perhaps more than many hundreds, to show the desirability of being able to provide documentary proof of citizenship. It affords some protection.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: But this measure does not consider that situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, my hon. friend has likely given more attention to this matter than I have.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not know whether I have given it more attention, but if the minister would tell me where that has application in this measure, I should like to know.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is the difference between St. Paul and St. Paul's.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The second general matter with which I wish to deal is the provision in the bill for the maintenance of the status of British subject. From the remarks of certain hon. members it is apparent that there is a large measure of misunderstanding as to the reason for having the sections which deal with the status of British subject. I think it has been generally felt that the principle involved in sections 26 and 28 is of such importance that the bill cannot be properly dealt with on second reading without referring to them in some detail.
Section 26 states that a Canadian citizen is a British subject. What does this mean? Does it mean that a Canadian citizen is a subject of Great Britain? It most certainly does not. No one needs to tell hon. members of the Canadian parliament that the independence of Canada is complete. Canadians are subject to the authority of no government outside Canada. No matter what they may be called, they are as Canadians subject to no other country. There is no possible room for doubt on this point.
Does the section means that we are demanding special favours for Canadians? Are we calling them British subjects in order to require of other countries of the commonwealth that they be given special treatment? Some hon. members have suggested that that is so. In reality, it is not so. The government of the United Kingdom is not obliged to give any special treatment to all persons who happen to bear the generic name "British subject". It can differentiate among them as much as it wishes, and give as many or as few rights and privileges as it sees fit. The government of Australia can treat Australian-British subjects in one way and Canadian-British subjects in another. It can differentiate between Cana-
 '
dlan-British subjects and South African-British subjects. It can do precisely as it wishes, no matter what term of description we may use. The same is true for all other governments of the commonwealth. Each one is completely free to give or deny rights to British subjects as a whole or to any part of that broad group. Such differentiation and distinction has been a fact for years, and it will continue to be a fact.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask
one simple question-and I assure the minister I am trying to be helpful? I just wrote down w'hat the minister said, that a Canadian subject is a British subject. I wonder under what authority he is entitled to say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has said that it is a simple question. Is there any doubt that this parliament has the right to determine the character and status of its people?


Arthur Leroy Smith: None whatsoever. I was speaking extra-territorially, in conformity with the bill, I would assume.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will come to that later.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I . m sorry
I interrupted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is all right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was not
being facetious.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a result, it is clear that when we say "A Canadian citizen is a British subject", we ask no recognition from anyone for any particular implications as flowing from the title. Whatever rights or privileges another country gives to Canadian citizens will depend on their law-not on ours.. Nothing we may do can. in any way limit their full and free capacity to treat our citizens on whatever basis they see fit in so far as their law is concerned.
There is a third possibility as to the meaning of the section. Is it necessary to ensure that a Canadian citizen is a subject of His Majesty the King? Again the answer is no. It is, of course, beyond doubt that a Canadian citizen is and will be a subject of the king, but that does not depend in any way upon the force of this section. There is no magic in the appellation "British subject", and a Canadian citizen would as surely and as loyally ow,e allegiance to the crown whether we called him "British subject" or not. Loyalty does not depend on a name, and it would be a rash man who would suggest that a Canadian would be less loyal as a "Canadian citizen" than he would be as a "British subject". The

Canadian Citizenship
fact of allegiance exists. The spirit of loyalty is beyond doubt. Section 26 could go without affecting our loyalty or the fact of our allegiance in any way.
Those, then, are three possibilities that do not apply. Section 26 does not mean subjection to Great Britain. It does not constitute a demand for special treatment. It is not essential to maintain our loyalty to the crown.
What then does section 26 mean when it says that "a Canadian citizen is a British subject?" It means nothing more or less than that we are retaining a term which has been used traditionally to designate a particular group of people in the world who share a peculiar association, of which association we have been and are a part. There is a definite practical reason for retaining the term, but before coming to that I wish to deal with some more general considerations.
Some people have questioned whether the retention of this term does not conflict with one purpose of the bill, which is to foster a sense of Canadianism. I do not think that it does or that it hinders us in any way. Because the name "British subject" implies no inflexible rights and duties we are able to retain it and still be completely free to legislate as we wish. It does not impose anything on us or deny anything from us. Moreover, there is, I think, a positive value in retaining this symbol of our association in the British commonwealth of nations. The commonwealth has been and is a great force for good in the world, and there is much to be said for preserving some of the evidences of association that do not conflict or interfere in any way with the essentials of our separate personality and status. The government is of the opinion that this house and the people of Canada will, on the whole, agree that the term should be retained.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The symbolism, you mean.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. From the practical point of view, however, there is an important reason for retaining the term "British subject". While it is not a term that has any specific meaning in terms of rights and duties, it has acquired the character of a technical legal term that has become so firmly embedded in our law, particularly our statute law, both provincial and dominion, that it cannot be swept away without an extensive revision of the law.
Many dominion statutes and also many provincial statutes make reference to "British subjects." It is necessary for the operation of these statutes that this term be defined in our Canadian law. If the term "British subject"
were to be dropped from the bill the result would be great confusion and uncertainty as to the application of many existing statutes. In questions of interpretation, if the meaning of the term "British subject" were not set forth as is now done in the bill, the courts would probably find it necessary to refer to the definition of "British subject" as it was recognized by the law prior to the enactment of a statutory definition. Under the common law there was no naturalization and, in general, only persons born to the status were British subjects. This would mean that, practically speaking, only persons boro in His Majesty's territories and allegiance would be British subjects. A person naturalized as a Canadian citizen would probably not be a British subject. In the same way, if we change the bill to say that "a Canadian citizen is a subject of His Majesty," rather than have the present section which says that "a Canadian citizen is a British subject," there again arises in cases of the interpretation of the statutes the question "whether this is the equivalent of making Canadian citizens British subjects for the purposes of our law.
The application of statutes in which reference is made to British subjects would be exceedingly difficult. Either the term "subject *of His Majesty" would be construed to mean a British subject, in which case we might as well use that term and be done with it, or it would not be so construed1, in which case the application of a large number of statutes would be materially altered, with a result which we cannot prophesy.
What it amounts to is this: If we do not provide for Canadian citizenship also having the status of British subjects, it will necessitate the reexamination of a large number of statutes by us, and more particularly by provincial governments. I include in that not only the provinces of Quebec and Ontario but every one of our nine provinces. There would certainly have to be extensive amendments made to many acts. So much for section 26.
Section 28 can be dealt with very briefly. It will be noted that what it does is to say that certain non-Canadians are to have the status of British subjects in Canada. The reasons for including this section are of the same order as those far including section 26. The broad argument as a symbol of association is the same, and the practical legal consideration is almost identical. If section 28 were not included there would again be the danger of confusion as to the meaning of our present statute law. Until the law is changed there would be considerable difficulty and confusion.
Canadian Citizenship

So far as the consequences of section 28 are concerned, in terms of rights, duties and privileges for non-Canadian British subjects, these obviously depend upon the terms and provisions of Canadian law. If we use the term "British subject" often in our statutes, section 28 may mean a great deal. If we use the term rarely, the section may mean relatively little. It all depends upon the state of our law.
The house has given this measure its wide approval and endorsation, largely because we are determined, all of us, regardless of our political convictions, to create as the paramount status of our country that of Canadian citizenship, enjoying at the same time the common status of British subject; for we must not forget that we are a free nation within the Commonwealth. We must no fail to recognize the danger of the implications which are involved in the two extremes to which I referred in the course of my remarks to-night.
This bill has won not only the approval of this house in principle, but because I promised the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) that I would do so to-night, I may say that it has won the approval of the government of Australia. The Ottawa Journal of April 9 contained a report that Prime Minister Chifley had announced that the Australian government had approved the principles embodied in the Canadian citizenship bill and proposed to set up an act along the same lines. That represents on the part of Australia, no less than on our part, a simple desire to create within that country, as in this country, a feeling that all the people belong to the country. In the case of Canada they belong to a country which in the light of its history and achievements has the right to be able to give to its citizens the designation which the people in every other country of the world save ourselves thus far, except for the limited purposes of the Immigration Act, have enjoyed.
During the debate the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) in an extremely able speech suggested that we should try to avoid hyphens, that we should try to avoid differences of race and religion. I can only say that this bill seeks to do that very thing. It will not do for hon. gentlemen to suggest that one group is less loyal to the commonwealth than another group, as has been suggested during the debate this afternoon. I take second place to no one in this house in my loyalty to the king and to the institutions of the British commonwealth, and I am sure that that is true of every hon. member in this house. Instead of trying for one purpose or another to create divisions in this country, instead of trying to create strawmen only to

knock them down, if we would seek to emphasize the common benefits of being members of the Canadian family we would be subscribing to the creating of a healthier condition in this country.
What we are trying to do basically by this bill, in the light of the development of Canada to-day as a nation, is to give to her citizens the right to be able to use a common designation which will apply to all whether they live on the Pacific or the Atlantic coast, whether they are French, English, Irish or Scandinavian or what you will, to give them a right to be able to say proudly, "We are citizens of Canada, we owe loyalty to a common king." I submit with great respect that by no stretch of the imagination can that be construed as a violation of the freedom which we enjoy as a people.
I referred to the desirability, instead of trying to pit one group against another, instead of trying to measure loyalty to Canada or to the crown, of considering an example which I think is a notable one in this country. I refer to what has been done by the university of western Ontario, a non-denominational university in my part of the country. I am sure the hon. member for London (Mr. Man-ross) will subscribe wholeheartedly to what I am going to say because he is as familiar with this work as I am. A number of years ago Doctor Sherwood Fox, a Canadian of Anglo-Saxon origin, whose love for Canada, by his own record, I think is as great as that of any man in this country, sought to give to the students of that university an understanding of Quebec by creating a summer school at Trois Pistoles, which I believe is in the riding of my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Bennett took it away from me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was done to instruct English-speaking Canadians in the culture and language of French Canada. That is the kind of thing we should be doing instead of constantly measuring our loyalty, the loyalty of one group as compared with another; instead of saying, "I am more loyal than you are; my whole record shows it." I believe that the example of Doctor Fox in western Ontario is an example that all of us in this house without exception might well seek to emulate. I understand that at the present time a group in the province of Quebec are seeking to establish a school in Ontario to which their students can go and have the same opportunities of subscribing to desirable outside influences. Those are the things which we as members of this house should seek to empha-

Canadian Citizenship
size instead of for one purpose or another trying to use devices that can only divide, that cannot bring us more closely together.
I join with what has been said by other hon. gentlemen in paying a tribute, not only to those who have come into our Canadian family as British subjects but to those who have come from other parts of the world, some of whom are in this house. I could not avoid feeling impressed when I heard the speech of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), a man whom I have known for a long time. He comes from my own city. He was born in Russia; he came to Canada as a young lad and sold papers on the streets. His mother and father undertook the most menial tasks in the city of Windsor in order to give their children an opportunity to get along. That man is now a member of this House of Commons and was a former member of the government of Ontario. We should be proud of such people and their achievements. We should be proud of these people who are seeking to enter our Canadian family, whether they come from Yugoslavia or any other country. If we look upon them as being entitled to citizenship, then we should accord them all the privileges without creating unnecessarily divisions as between them and other potential Canadian citizens. It is only with that spirit that we shall build the kind of national fibre that everyone in this house really wants.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) said to-day that this bill by itself will not make true citizens. He went on to praise the bill and commended it to the house. I agree with him that it will not make citizens, but it will remove some of the confusion and anomalies that exist in the Canadian Nationals Act, and in the Immigration Act, and inadequacies in the Naturalization Act. It will give legal emphasis to something which in our schools, in our homes and in our churches, throughout the whole of our national life, we can do if we really want to.
A week ago in a Canadian newspaper I came across the following; and while I am not given to quoting poetry I wish to quote this to the house to-night because of the lesson given in its words, and particularly having in mind' their author. This poem was written by Percy J. Philip, a member of the Press Gallery who was president of the gallery last year. He has put into words something that I know will kindle the hearts of every member of this house. He has written:
To Canada our fathers came And gave this unknown land its name This Canada of ours;
God grant that we will never let That name be tarnished or forget The joy of building mightier yet This Canada of ours.
Out of the rivalry and strife Of older peoples came to life This Canada of ours;
They fought for what they thought was good;
God. in His mercy, understood And formed into a brotherhood This Canada of ours.
In strength together we -will stand, Defending our beloved land,
This Canada of ours;
And never shall it cease to be,
A nation where all men are free In unity from sea to sea This Canada of ours.
Those words, put into writing by a distinguished journalist, now a resident in this country, a former resident of the United Kingdom who for twenty years served a great newspaper in France, subscribe to what I know we in this house and our children and our children's children will come to regard as the standard by which real Canadianism will be judged.
My final words in moving the second reading of this bill are these. Fortune has placed this country in the position where its people do not all speak the same language and do not all adore God at the same altar. Our task is to mould all these elements into one community without destroying the richness of any of those cultural sources from which ma-^ our people have sprung. No one, I think, has gripped the need of meeting this problem of the Canadian mosaic better than a great former prime minister of this country, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said, speaking to a group of students at the university of Toronto of the necessity of trying to have groups in Canada understand one another; "Three years ago I visited in England one of those models of gothic architecture which the hands of genius guided by an unerring faith had moulded into a harmonious whole. This cathedral was made of oak, of granite and of marble. It is the image of the nation I want to see Canada become. I want the marble to remain the marble; I want the oak to remain the oak; I want the granite to remain the granite; and out of these elements I would build a nation great among the nations of the world."


Douglas King Hazen: May I ask the Secretary of State a question? Speaking in this debate I asked him if the provisions of this bill had been submitted to the other members of the commonwealth, and in reply he said that the answer was yes and that he would give greater detail later on. I think the minister might give that detail now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will do so in committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: I move, Mr. Speaker, that you do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider said bill.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put may I say that I thought the minister intended to make some reference to the suggestion I made earlier this afternoon with respect to the procedure to be adopted in considering this bill. I suggested that we might have much more effective and satisfactory results if the bill were sent to such a committee as the external affairs committee. I should like to have a statement from the minister on that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very sorry; I had fully intended replying to the suggestion of my hon. friend. The government has thought it desirable to proceed with the bill in committee of the whole, where there will be ample opportunity for any hon. member to put any question he desires. To send the bill to a committee would mean that it would come back here and there would be a repetition of the whole matter. We feel, in the light of all the circumstances, that it would be better to proceed with the bill in committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee. Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that this bill was not sent to the committee on external affairs, where (witnesses could have been called and examined.


Jean-François Pouliot: Call a phrenologist.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The hon. member for Temiscouata is always close to his constituents. He likes to have his constituents heard from. Perhaps some of his constituents would like to come here and meet a committee of this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: They would not be interested in the committee if the hon. member was on it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am sorry I did not hear the hon. member. However, that is all right.
The minister in the course of his remarks spoke about people being interested in national unity. I do not know of any man or any two men in Canada who have done more to bring about national unity in Canada than my old friend Stephen Leacock and Rene Du Roure, professor of French at McGill university.


Jean-François Pouliot: And Doctor Shields.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We hear a lot of talk about other people, but we all know what Stephen Leacock tried to do, and if my hon. friends want to read something instructive with reference to national unity in Canada, and all the difficulties relating thereto, it might be well for them to get the last book that Leacock wrote. It is well worth while.
I wish to ask the minister a couple of questions. When we are conferring British citizenship on Canadian citizens, we do confer the same privilege upon all citizens of the British empire, so far as the empire as a whole is concerned, in relation to Canadian citizenship. As regards the five years' residence, the minister said that it was the same as it was in 1910. But times have changed since then and people are going from one part of the empire to another. This is taking place in all parts of the British empire, and I do not see why a man in one part of the empire should be treated the same as people outside the empire.
The main reason I rose was to make this statement. One would have thought there were only one or two classes of people in Canada who really desire to have Canadian citizenship; but as a matter of fact, for quite a long time, we have had "new Canadians" as well as old Canadians. We have had' Italians, loyal Germans, Ukrainians. Polish people, Russians. All these people came to this country a lopg while ago and they wish to have Canadian citizenship. They wish to be Canadians. For that reason I am anxious to see this bill passed. I am supporting the bill. What I wish to see, however, is that citizenship does not become a mere formality, that people will simply go and obtain citizenship without any trouble at all. There should be a decent ceremony in connection with the granting of citizenship, and people should be taught to be really good Canadian citizens. I wish to see prospective citizens made aware of the obligations which will devolve upon them in relation to the privileges which they will enjoy as a result of being Canadian citizens. I want to see them properly instructed so that they may get a reasonable idea of the history of this country and of the great traditions of their forefathers. There are great traditions so far as the great French race in Canada is concerned ; there are great traditions so far as the great English race in Canada is concerned; there are great traditions so far as the German races, the Ukrainian races and others are concerned; and all that history, all that sort of thing, the good being carefully sifted from the bad, should be taught prospective citizens. They should be told what mistakes have been

Canadian Citizenship
made in history. Inly in that way shall we get something worth while out of our Canadian citizenship.
I do not agree with the idea of simply making people Canadian citizens without proper instruction. That will result in nothing worth while. We must have a unified educational system in Canada, a system which will teach people to be good Canadian citizens and which will teach them the best that we have in Canada.
We have to get rid of all the old festering sores that we have had, between the races in this country. We must get rid of all the bad things and teach people that the brotherhood of man in Canada will mean something to them and that being a Canadian citizen will be worth while.
I am certainly in favour of this bill, but I think that any British subject in the commonwealth of nations, with laws similar to our own, should be allowed to become a Canadian citizen without any fuss or feathers so long as he has become a British citizen in some other part of the commonwealth. I have nothing more to say except this. We must teach the traditions pertaining to all the good which we have acquiredi in the past, or this bill will not prove of any value.


Mr. FLEMING:: I believe I was the first
in the course of the debate on the second reading to put to the Secretary of State a question as to the relationship between this bill and the elections act in the definition of requirements in connection with the franchise. This afternoon when the question was raised again the Secretary of State indicated that in his opinion he had answered the question several times but I did not gather that in the earlier part of the debate. To-night he referred to the subject in his concluding remarks before the bill received second reading.
I think it is quite clear to all members that there is something anomalous about citizenship with all the rights and privileges pertaining to that status while it is possible for someone who does not hold citizenship to have the full right of the franchise. The Secretary of State as I followed his remarks indicated that it is not the present intention of the government to introduce a bill to amend the elections act in order to confine the franchise to those who after the final enactment of this measure will be Canadian citizens.
I would ask the Secretary of State-because it is an important question and is bound to have an influence on the views of members with regard to later sections of the bill when we come to them-if he is not prepared to
make a further statement in this respect. I am not asking for a reiteration of what has already been stated. I am asking if the Secretary of State is not prepared to say on behalf of the government not simply that they do not intend to introduce an amendment to the election act but that they are giving their pledge to the house that so long as this government is in power, there will be no amendment to the elections act seeking to confine the franchise to those who will be citizens under this bill if it is adopted. That clarification is due the house. I am not at the moment suggesting to the minister what course he ought to take, but, with great respect, I suggest that the house is entitled to the clearest possible statement on that matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman does
not want us to be Canadian citizens honoris causa but Canadian citizens de facto. Is that what he means?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member followed my remarks he must have noted that I made it clear that at the moment I am not suggesting to the Secretary of State what his answer ought to be. I want the fullest clarification of the government's position in this respect. I also pointed out that it would be anomalous if the franchise were not confined to citizens where the status of citizenship is defined by statute of parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman. The point taken by the hon. member for Eglinton was very well taken and it was subtle. He wants to lead the minister into a trap, but my duty is to warn the minister to be very careful about questions put to him by the hon. gentleman. He tries to get him on slippery ground. Here is the piece of legislation that is before us. It is fine; it is laudable. We are all proud to be Canadian citizens. That is all right. It is honoris causa. It is like an honorary degree in law.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member is an assistant to the Secretary of State.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member will never debunk me, though he boasts of debunking others. I like him just as much as I like the hon. member for Lethbridge. This is all very interesting. There are grocers. The grocery trade is an honourable trade. It is like grocers who are appointed doctors of law honoris causa. They are very useful in spite of the fact the food does not grow on their shelves. The trade is useful to all of us, and when the trade goes down we all complain
Canadian Citizenship

about it. They may be doctors of law. Any rich man who- makes an endowment to a university is given a doctor of law degree honoris causa. I wonder whether we are going to be Canadian citizens honoris causa. That is my point. If we are Canadian citizens honoris causa we should be given a diploma to keep in our living rooms. Each Canadian citizen will keep that diploma with the seal of the Secretary of State upon it in his drawing-room or living-room, and those who are more modest, in the room that serves as a dining-room kitchenette. It will be there and it will be something to hide the pipe-hole; that is all. If we are Canadian citizens de facto, if the gracious thing that is proposed to us has a meaning, then necessarily the elections act will have to be amended so that it will mean something to be a Canadian citizen and a British subject at the same time. As the bill stands now, if the elections act is amended to permit Canadian citizens only to vote, then there should be another amendment to permit only British subjects to vote, and these two amendments will mean nothing. There will be no change in the law because these two changes will make the law no different from what it is now. Therefore what is the use of arguing? What is the use of the minister answering the able question put to him by the hon. member for Eglinton, who has split the hair so fine that no barber could do it any better, not even a Philadelphia lawyer? My hon. friend is bright enough to agree with me that as the bill stands now, which I hold in my hand; in fact I hold a copy in each hand-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is that dual nationality?


Jean-François Pouliot: He asked the question to embarrass the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not impute motives to my hon. friend. It was to assist the minister. It is veiy interesting. The hon. gentleman sits behind the fence, and when I wondered whether it was a suggestion that he had made to the minister he said No. He said, "I want information." His feeling and mine are the same. We want information about it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a neat way of getting it.


Gordon Graydon: When do we get it?


Jean-François Pouliot: I want the right kind of information, and I want to give the minister time to think about the answer so that he answers with his usual wisdom. Let me ask

the hon. gentleman who occupies the seat that I occupied when Mr. Bennett was in full bloom to be fair with the committee. I challenge him to suggest to the minister that he amend the elections act. He will not do that. If the minister amends the elections act in accordance with section 26 of this bill, then it will be a double amendment which will mean nothing. The hon. gentleman has had enough experience in law and in parliament to know very well that that amendment would change nothing in the elections act because it would be twofold.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to say something to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. The hon. gentleman asked a question of the hon. member for Eglinton. The answer did not come from the minister but from my dear old friend, the hon. member for Temiscouata. It is very easy for him to get elected. He has been working for a long time for all the constituents in his riding who "are all Canadians of French origin.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; I have Scotch, Irish and English people.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It is quite different in my riding. I rose to speak for some of my constituents who are neither Anglo-Saxon nor French. Those are the people who want Canadian citizenship more than anything else. They are fine people.


Jean-François Pouliot: Indeed they are.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Fortunately for me they elected me to the House of Commons. Had they not voted for me I would not. have been elected. What we are worried about is this. Is there to be some change in the franchise act to take care of the situation? I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question through you, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-François Pouliot: Ask it directly; no red tape.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has the hon.
gentleman done his duty as a Canadian toward educating these people from his part of the country, non-Anglo-Saxons and non-French Canadians, as far as their duty as citizens is concerned? That is part of the duty of each one of us. What we try to do in Ontario and in my riding is to make these people welcome when they come there, and make them feel that they are citizens. That is one of the reasons why we want to have something that will give them citizenship in this country. We want to welcome them there. The more people we get in this country of the type that I have in my riding who vote for me-I think

Canadian Citizenship
they vote for me-the better. I have many fine Ukrainians, Germans, Polish and Slavic people in my riding. These are the people that my hon. friend does not have in his riding. When they come to my riding in Toronto I want them to feel that they are welcome. This bill meets with my approval.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just one word in answer to what the hon. gentleman has said. He asked me a question, and I should like to answer him right away.


Mr. FULTON:: Give the minister a chance.


Jean-François Pouliot: He will have his chance in a moment, but an hon. gentleman on that side of the house asked me a question. He asked me if I tried to educate the people of Ontario.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No; I did not ask the hon. member about the people of Ontario; I asked him about the people of his own riding. We do not need education.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to answer the hon. gentleman seriously. I can tell him that I have a thousand more friends in the province of Ontario than he has in the province of Quebec. In the second place-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am not talking about the province of Ontario. I am asking about the people who come from foreign countries to my hon. friend's own riding.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to speak to the hon. member very seriously, and it will not be personal. I will remind him that in 1933 and 1934 I spoke for Mitch Hepburn in thirty-five counties of Ontario. I spoke with the Secretary of State; I spoke with his predecessor. I spoke in many places. I spoke in Toronto in French thirteen days before the election of 1935, and I told them that Quebec would be solidly Liberal.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Occasionally the hon. member is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes; but I was right in advance, and it carried weight. I wanted to inform the people of Ontario, not to educate them. What I regret with regard to the people of Ontario is not that they are not educated but that they are wrongly informed, which is altogether different; and there is no discrimination in that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Has this anything to do with section 1?
would have been much less generous to him than they were. He was elected by such a small margin that he must be very complimentary to his constituents. I can only say about them that they are most indulgent. They are very fine people, but they are forgetful; they are charitable, and they are not always very proud.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not say that in a bad sense, but with the best possible meaning of the word. Down home I do not educate my constituents; I inform them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, would you page Gilbert and Sullivan and let us get on with this.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask the hon. gentleman, who reminds me of a character we have all seen in the movies, the sea captain who played with Greta Garbo in her first picture, to let us finish this discussion. Afterward he can debunk someone, according to his own expression, though by the way that is something he has never done. In addition, I would tell the hon. member for Calgary West that he is a newcomer in this house, and that police court manners in this chamber are not interesting. But I will tell him that in spite of his white hair he can learn a lot, and with his intelligence I am surprised that he has not learned more quickly. I hope he will learn quicker in future, and then he will have an opportunity to educate St. Paul's.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Please,
teacher, won't you help me?


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, no, unless I am asked. Then I would be willing to do so, and I would do so very quickly. Now, sir, do you see the conceit of a member who says that he educates his people, meaning that they have no education? I strongly protest. It is an insult to all the constituents of the hon. member to say that he has educated them. In future, when he'speaks English I hope he will be careful to use expressions that will not reflect upon his constituents, who have been so kind to him. In their name I protest most vehemently against the insult he has thrown in their faces, by saying he was educating them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my question has not
been forgotten, and if the minister has had time to consider his answer, might the question be answered?


Jean-François Pouliot: I went there to inform Mr. MARTIN: Apparently the hon. gentle-them; and if I had gone to inform the con-	man is quite worried. I hope he is not going
stituents of my hon. friend, probably they	to suggest that there should be a change in the

Canadian Citizenship

elections act, because his anxiety has been rather disturbing. I hope that is not what he is going to propose, that we should change the elections act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not proposed anything yet. I want to know what the minister proposes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But the hon. member is so anxious, in spite of the fact that on six different occasions in this debate I have indicated, first, that this bill has nothing to do with the elections- act and, second, that there is no intention on the part of this government to change the elections act. The persistence of my hon friend's question suggests to my mind that perhaps he is going to urge that we should change it. He points out an anomaly. Admittedly it is an anomaly, but it is no more anomalous now than it has been for the past twenty-seven years. Section 2 of the existing Immigration Act is the only legislation, except for the definition in the Canadian Nationals Act, which defines a certain class of Canadian citizens as citizens. Non-Canadian British subjects who came to Canada under the Immigration Act were allowed, under the elections act, to vote after they had been here for a year, and after they had resided in a given electoral district for two months continuously. They did not acquire citizenship under the Immigration Act until the end of five years. So that if there is an anomaly, and I say there is-as my hon. friend knows, he and I studied constitutional law from the same source, though apparently with different results and different measures of success-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not saying that in an unkindly way, because my hon. friend was an outstanding student, and he certainly excelled me. But obviously he has forgotten many of the things he studied so ably. The fact is that the British commonwealth itself presents many anomalies which in the light of pure constitutional theory are sometimes hard to understand or fully appreciate. There is the further fact that in the case of Cunningham versus Tomey Homma, 1903 Appeal Cases, page 151- my hon. friend, being a good lawyer, might want to look up that case-Lord Haldane observed:	[DOT]
The term "political rights" used in the Canadian Naturalization Act is, as Walken J. very justly says, a very wide phrase, and their lordships concur in his observation that, whatever it means, it cannot be held to give necessarily a right to the suffrage in all or any of the provinces.
This had reference to a provincial elections act.

In the history of this country the right to the franchise has been granted and withheld on a great number of grounds, conspicuously upon grounds of religious faith, yet no one has ever suggested that a person excluded from the franchise was not under allegiance to the sovereign.
Could it be suggested that the province of British Columbia . . .
It had reference to a case in that province.
.	. could not exclude an alien from the franchise in that province? Yet, if the mere mention of alienage in the enactment could make the law ultra vires, such a construction of s. 91, sub-s. 25, would involve that absurdity.
So that assuming that for the time being we overlook the operation of the Dominion Elections Act, under this decision and under other decisions subsequently the matter of the franchise in each province is a matter for that province, in so far as it affects provincial elections. Therefore, assuming something were done here which will not be done, you would have the anomaly of provincial laws giving to people who lived here for only one year the right to vote, when they would not enjoy that right under the federal statute in the hypothetical situation envisaged. So that I can only repeat the statement I have already made, that if there is an anomaly, it is one of the anomalies inherent in the constitutional set-up of this country and of the commonwealth itself.
While the hon. member for Temiscouata was making his contribution to-night-and I always enjoy listening to him, derive a great deal of benefit from what he says and, if he will permit my saying so, much pleasure-I had in mind the fact that I ought not to overlook the observations made by the hon. member for St. Paul's. I would simply remind him that in Australia, one of the important free countries within the commonwealth, there, as here, they have a provision whereby citizens for certain limited purposes are designated as such after having lived in the country-as in this country-for five years. They are, however, allowed to vote at the end of a year-again, as in this country. That may be anomalous, as it may be here-and has been since 1919, also for three years since 1910 and for two years before 1910. But that is the fact.
With regard to instructions to new citizens, perhaps the hon. member for St. Paul's was not in the house when I made my statement on second reading, at which time I indicated what it is intended to do in that regard, and what had been done thus far. I mentioned I had gone to a number of these ceremonies to try, perhaps not through my own presence, but more because of the office I hold, to lend some additional prestige to those ceremonies, and to make them somewhat more impressive

Canadian Citizenship
for the applicants. I told the house of having attended a ceremony in Toronto, one presided over by Judge Parker, who has taken a great deal of interest in these matters.
I have also told the house that I believe there is much to be gained by making these ceremonies more impressive hereafter than they have been. It is also desirable that we should place in the hands of potential Canadian citizens of all groups-because the knowledge of potential Canadian citizens from all groups varies-in an exemplary and not in any compulsory way much of the information we regard as essential to good citizenship in this country.
When we come to the section dealing with ceremonies I shall deal with that in more detail, but I mention it now so that the hon. member for St. Paul's will not think I had spent too much time on the hon. member for Temiscouata and the hon. member for Eglinton.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Shall the section carry?


Douglas King Hazen: No. On second reading of the bill I referred to the preparatory conference attended by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe in 1929, and to the recommendations which were brought in by that conference and which were later placed before the house for approval. When I spoke on second reading of this bill I asked the Secretary of State if he would tell us if the provisions of this measure had been submitted to the other members of the commonwealth; if so, when were they submitted and what were their answers? The Secretary of State then said that he would give a fuller explanation of what took place and, using his own words, replied, "Yes, I shall give greater details later on." Is he now in a position to give us those details? We are now on the first section of the bill and I should like to know what took place.	*


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is true that I did promise to explain in greater detail, not because I did not want to do so earlier, but because I had no opportunity. When he was speaking I offered to do so, but because he did not wish to have his time taken, he suggested that my reply be made later. So that if an explanation has not been forthcoming earlier it has not been my fault.
As the hon. member has said, at the imperial conference of 1929 it was agreed that there should be consultation with regard to any change in the common status. In the first place, there is no change in the common 63260-65J
t status provision. In the second place, the bill we now have before the house was sent to all the parties to that conference.
In addition, last January officials of the Department of External Affairs had discussions with officials of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom; and as a result of those discussions I am in a position to say that they regard this bill as a model one. Likewise the bill went to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. As I indicated to the house this afternoon, when I quoted the statement of the Prime Minister of Australia, they regard our bill as a model one, and propose to adopt its provisions. I do not think I can add anything further, unless the hon. member wants something more specific.


Major James William Coldwell: Did it go to Eire?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: When was the bill sent to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa? The Secretary of State has said a reply was received from Australia. Was any reply received from New Zealand or from South Africa; if so, when?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The first intimation extended to all parties was in a telegram of September 27. A copy of the bill was sent on October 12.


Douglas King Hazen: The other question is: Were replies received from the governments of New Zealand and South Africa; if so, what were they?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There were no replies.


Douglas King Hazen: The minister did not get their consent to it, then?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely my hon. friend does not contend that this free parliament has to get their consent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Since when?


Douglas King Hazen: I should like to quote what Doctor E. H. Coleman, who sits before the minister to-night, said when he appeared before a committee of the house on June 15, 1943. As reported at page 734 of Hansard, he said:
But the point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that we are bound-perhaps not legally, but morally at least-not to make any fundamental changes in the act without consultation with the other dominions, which includes the United Kingdom.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right; and that consultation has taken place.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It was a Unitarian show, was it? You just wrote them, and got no reply. So you said, "Silence gives consent." Is that the argument being used?
Canadian Citizenship


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And he does not need your help from back there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have explained to the hon. member that first of all an intimation of the provisions of the bill was sent by telegram and, second, the bill was sent on October 12. In other words, when we let other parties know, some of them saw fit to make comment, while others, for reasons of their own, had no comment to make.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Who made it and what? That is what we are trying to find out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman must learn to be courteous if he expects a courteous reply.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am awfully sorry. If I do not seem to be courteous it may be merely my western ways. However, the minister is being a little difficult himself, so do not let us get excited.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman is a new member and as time goes on he will learn that sometimes friendship can be abused. I know he does not want that to happen.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Certainly not. Now, please teacher, adopt your own ethics and we shall get along all right.


Douglas King Hazen: There is another question I should like to put to the minister.


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauhamois-Laprairie):: Will the minister be kind enough to tell me what addition is made by this bill to what we already had in our statutes? The purpose of this bill is to create a Canadian nationality, but we already have an act, of which I have a copy before me, entitled, "an act to define Canadian nationals and to provide for the renunciation of Canadian nationality." That act was passed in 1921. At the end of the act will be found a declaration of renunciation of Canadian nationality. We cannot renounce what we do not have. We already have in this country a Canadian nationality and I should like to know if anything is added by this bill. What is the difference between a Canadian national under the act of 1921 and a Canadian citizen under this bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman asks what is done by this bill that is not done by the existing law. First of all, what is the existing law? There are three relevant acts. First, there is the Naturalization Act. My hon. friend nods and I hope he does not mean that I should push on, because I do want him

to see the difference. Under that act imperial naturalization certificates were extended to applicants. It had an extra-territorial effect. That is the Naturalization Act, of which the act of 1914 was an amendment. The Naturalization Act simply provided for the issuance of naturalization certificates to non-British subjects, people who sought entry into Canada through the Immigration Act.
Then there was the Canadian Nationals Act introduced into this house by the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Doherty. It is true that thlt act did seek to define for a specific purpose what we call a Canadian national.


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: It was creating a Canadian nationality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that it was creating a Canadian nationality, but with great respect I say that it was not. What the act in its specific terms did was to give a definition of "Canadian citizenship" by reference. By reference to what? By reference to the Immigration Act, about which I shall have something to say in a moment.
We had become signatories to the peace treaties; we were members of the league of nations; we had adhered to the statute of the permanent court of international justice. Because there was no such designation in the the Immigration Act of a national the government of the day felt that in order to overcome what seemed to be a legal difficulty there should be an act called the Canadian Nationals Act which had as its purpose the enabling of Canadians to hold certain designated offices under some of the organizations set up by the treaties of peace. That was the purpose of that act. Speaking in the house, the then Minister of Justice indicated that it was intended to be nothing else. He was faced with the sort of questions that we have been faced with in this debate, that by trying to create a Canadian nationality we were breaking up the commonwealth and so on. In order that he would not be faced with that difficulty in the light of public opinion in this country twenty-seven years ago he brought in that act for those limited purposes. The important thing about the Canadian Nationals Act is that it really had no definition at all except for one minor purpose. Its definition of "citizenship" was a definition by reference to section 2 of the Immigration Act.
The anomalous position created as a result of the act of 1919 was that the only designation of citizenship in this country was to be found in the Immigration Act. No country in the world has ever defined its citizens by a similar measure. The result is that until this bill becomes law the only class of people

Canadian Citizenship
who receive the legal designation of citizen are those people who come into Canada from the outside. In other words, the hon. member for Temiscouata, myself, and other hon. members in this house; my genial friend, the hon. member for Calgary West, for whom I have great affection, and many others in Canada are not now entitled to the legal designation of Canadian citizen. This bill will go one step farther than the provisions of the Immigration Act and the restricted meaning of the Canadian Nationals Act. As a result, all who are in fact citizens of Canada will achieve this status by law.
Another thing this bill will do is to remove another anomaly that can exist under the Canadian Nationals Act and the Immigration Act. A person who has never lived in Canada, who may live in Europe, who is the son or daughter of a Canadian national may under the provisions of the Canadian Nationals Act be granted a passport and yet under the provisions of the Immigration Act be denied entry into Canada. Imagine such a thing as a Canadian national being denied entry to his own country! That was the anomalous situation which created all kinds of confusion and it is one of the things which will be a matter of history when this bill becomes law.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It has existed for twenty-seven years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For twenty-seven years.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Time for a change.


Maxime Raymond: When the minister spoke in the house on October 22 he said:
Despite what one often hears to the contrary, there has been a Canadian nationality.
As I understand it, this bill does not create a Canadian nationality because we had it before. We cannot create what we already have. As I stated before, there is a schedule in the Canadian Nationals Act which provides for the renunciation of Canadian nationality. We cannot renounce what we do not have. I want this cleared up. I contend that this bill does not create a Canadian nationality. As the minister says, it is a codification of many statutes. I agree with that statement, but it does not create a Canadian nationality because we already have that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to get into a metaphysical argument with my hon. friend as to what nationality means. I can only say to him what I have already said, perhaps too often, and accentuate it a little by pointing out that the first point to be considered in reading together the two sections of the Canadian Nationals Act and the Immigration Act is that the present Canadian law provides for two distinct classes of person who would come under the definition of "Canadian." A person may be a Canadian national and a Canadian citizen. That is the law as it now stands and, as the hon. member for Calgary West has said, the time has come when we should change it.
The Canadian Nationals Act confines the class of Canadian citizens to persons born in -Canada who have not become aliens and to naturalized subjects of His Majesty with Canadian domicile and to those who have -been naturalized under the laws of Canada and who have not subsequently become aliens. The same act defines "Canadian domicile" to mean a landing in Canada within the meaning of the act. Listen to this:
The wife of a Canadian citizen unless landed in Canada or born in Canada and the children of a Canadian citizen unless landed in Canada or born in Canada are thus excluded from the category of Canadian citizens although such wife and children are Canadian nationals within the meaning of the second act. For example, A is a Canadian citizen and a Canadian national under the two acts. He has a wife B and several minor children. These are not citizens unless born or landed in Canada. The whole family are Canadian nationals under the act . . .
Which my hon. friend says creates Canadian nationality. And so on. I might read thousands of cases where a real injustice has been perpetrated because of the confusion.


Maxime Raymond: Is this bill extending Canadian nationality?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was a limited definition of a Canadian citizen; there is now. We are here clarifying ambiguities, removing confusion and extending citizenship to a point where we make the paramount status of a Canadian that of Canadian citizenship.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Following up this point as to consultation with the other dominions, the minister has said that this bill will make no fundamental change in the status of a British subject. I would refer him to the Naturalization Act, which is, I understand, a uniform act throughout all the member countries of the British commonwealth. By section 11 of that act as it now stands the Secretary of State of Canada can by certificate of naturalization create a British subject for Canada, and the same may be done by the Secretary of State or the corresponding minister of all other empire countries. That act was passed in 1914, and it provided that after the act was adopted by all member countries of the commonwealth they should have the power
Canadian Citizenship

to create British subjects for their own country and for all other countries of the commonwealth. That act is to be revoked by the present measure before the house. I would ask the minister to explain how he can say that this act makes no fundamental change in the status of a British subject when that is the effect of this bill. One may say that a Canadian citizen will be a British subject, but if we revoke the Naturalization Act I submit that he is not a British subject in the other countries of the empire; and that is a fundamental change made in the status of a British subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we come to section 28 I think I can show that it is not a change in result but in method.


Douglas King Hazen: Under our present act a woman marrying a British subject becomes a British subject. But under the proposed legislation that is not the case. Surely that is a fundamental change. I think the Secretary of State was playing with words a little when he replied to me a moment or two ago.
I should like to refer again to the preparatory conference that was held in 1929. At that conference certain recommendations were made. A resolution was brought into this house by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe to approve those recommendations, some of which will be found on page 713 of Hansard of this year. In 1930 the imperia conference was held. That conference app oved those recommendations, and the conch lions which the conference reached were cor ained in a certain memorandum. The secone conclusion is this, and I quote from page 713 of Hansard of this year:
That, if any changes are desired in the existing requirements for the common status, provision should he made for the maintenance of the common status, and the changes should only be introduced (in accordance with present practice) after consultation and agreement among the several members of the commonwealth.
It will be noted that it says not only after consultation but after consultation and agreement among the several members of the commonwealth. It is quite apparent from what the Minister of State said to me a moment or two ago that there has not been consultation and agreement among the several members of the commonwealth, and while perhaps it may not be absolutely legally necessary for that to be done, yet there is, I submit, a moral responsibility on the government to have not only consultation but an agreement with the other members of the commonwealth. It is quite apparent that that was not done. It seems to me that that step should have been taken before *his bill was introduced

into this house, and the Secretary of State and the government have slipped up in that respect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can quite appreciate my hon. friend's anxiety.


Douglas King Hazen: It is not anxiety.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us say his persistence, but the fact is that we sent a telegram to each of the responsible parties advising them of the principles of our bill and we sent them the bill itself on October 12 last. The hon. gentleman will appreciate that there are many things done, many exchanges, many acts by the various dominions. For instance, Australia has passed an act dealing with the status of women, providing for separate status. Australia did not advise Canada of that; Australia decided not to. South Africa made changes; South Africa did not consult Canada. All this was done since the conference of 1929. Consultation and agreement between the dominions do not mean that you have to have an airtight agreement such as you would have perhaps between Canada and a country outside the commonwealth. There is not that barrier between the countries of the commonwealth that exists between ourselves and certain other national groups, and consultation and agreement between the dominions have come to mean not an agreement under seal or anything of that sort but exactly what we have done. We have notified all the parties. One of them has had discussions with us and has mentioned that it regards the bill as a model one. We have also had intimations of the views of Australia in statements from their Prime Minister. I might point out that the United Kingdom amended their act in 1942 or 1943 and they followed exactly the practice that we followed here. They asked us by cablegram if we had any objection, and that is the course we have followed here. My hon. friend may be assured not only that the government has not slipped but that every precaution has been taken to live up to the constitutional practice in this matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Somebody one day was showing movies, but one thing had been forgotten. They forgot to turn the lights on inside the projector. I am reminded of that by this bill. What is it? It says:
This act may be cited as the Canadian citizenship act.
What is citizenship? No one knows. It is not mentioned there. The title of the act reads:
An act respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens.

Canadian Citizenship
This is evidently in accord with the various acts that are more or less brought together in this draft legislation. Well and good. But how can anyone discuss a draft like this unless he knows what he is talking about? No one can know what he is talking about unless the most important words, the words that form the basis of the legislation, are defined. There is an obvious reason for that. According to a decision of the privy council, the most magnificent speeches that are delivered in the house cannot be produced in court. The law speaks for itself, except that we have to consider jurisprudence. Let us consider the trouble to which a judge will be put the first time he has to interpret this piece of legislation where we do not find the definitions that are of the utmost importance, the guiding stars, the pillars of light, which we need in order to understand the new enactment. I urge the minister, therefore, to remove the fear of all difficulty, all misunderstanding, all quarrels and all litigation by defining "citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens." It may be said, "Go to the dictionary and see what Webster says."


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not say that the minister would say that. The minister is a man of too much legal science and experience to speak in that way to his colleagues. I am delighted and reassured by the fact that he has said no to that possible suggestion. The bill was brought down last year and was set aside and we have it again this year. We must make it a good bill or drop it pro tempore. Is the minister willing to define those four words that we find in the title of the bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The words "Canadian citizen" are defined in sections 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just one moment. It is
wrongly drafted and I do not put the blame on the minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is my fault, if there is a fault.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. The definitions should be in the interpretation section. We should not have to run through the bill to find definitions; they should be at the beginning. The comer-stone is not in the attic; it is down below. I would ask the minister to make some amendment. I will not bother about it, but I hope he will amend the bill for the sake of those who wish to take advantage of this legislation. The legislation should be clear. We have had enough discussion and the bill itself must be made clear. There must be no misunderstanding whatever. I thank the minister for what he has said, but a layman cannot go through the bill or understand it without having all the definitions together. That is a warning to all those who draft legislation. Our legislation is putrid; it is half-baked. We have reached the stage where a minor clerk can hand out anything to the Canadian people from his desk or over the telephone There must be a change and everyone must have respect for legislation. This is a thing I have insisted on for a long time. We are not ready to sponsor legislation if it is not decently drafted. If it is not properly drafted it should be left in the keg for some time to mature and improve like good wine.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was struck by the
Secretary of State's definition of "consultation" and it cleared up in my mind some points as to the way things are decided within the cabinet and, perhaps, the consultation which goes on between, say, the wartime prices and trade board and the Minister of Finance before a decision is announced. That definition of "consultation" will, I think, clear up for many of us a good many of the anomalies we have found in announcements of government policy and the interpretation they receive by various ministers. I do not know whether the Secretary of State consulted his own previous statement before he made, the statement this evening as to the anomalies which exist at present in the elections act andi which will exist as a result of this bill, but he has frequently, indeed constantly, sought to refute the suggestion that after the passing of this measure the right to vote will be in no way dependent upon becoming a Canadian citizen. However, he said that the object of the bill is to define and establish the rights and duties of citizenship and to create in the minds of all of us a clear understanding of the great privileges which are involved in becoming a Canadian citizen. I would refer him to his words, which he uttered on moving the second reading of the bill, as reported at 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 the Secretary of State this question: Is there any more fundamental right, any greater right, or one more inherent in citizenship than the right to vote? Is there any privilege which a Canadian citizen could value more than the privilege of casting his vote on election day, despite what the hon. member for Temiscouata says? If that is so, and I doubt whether the minister would deny it, then it seems to me it must logically follow that if
Canadian Citizenship

the right is not in the elections act it must depend upon becoming a Canadian citizen. The minister said it is not his intention-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said it was not the
intention of the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -to change the elections
act. Is he prepared to retract the words I have read to him or to give them some explanation? At the moment I cannot reconcile his earlier words with the statement that it is not intended to change the elections act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has placed an interpretation upon previous words of mine. That is his privilege. I do not think there is any difficulty at all. It is a difficulty which I am sure exists at the moment largely in his own mind. If there is an anomaly, and I do not deny that there is, it is an anomaly that has existed for twenty-seven years. It has been a definition of "Canadian citizenship" in the Immigration Act of this country. Under that act nonBritish subjects who have come to Canada and have been here for a year can vote at the end of that time under the Dominion Elections Act, although they do not acquire Canadian domicile under section 2 of the Immigration Act until they have been here for five years. That was an anomaly if you like. It was also perhaps anomalous-my hon. friend was not in the house when I referred "o the case where the Lord Chancellor pointed nt that the franchise is not necessarily-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think he goes so far as to say it is not necessarily an inherent right or corollary or ancillary to the designation of citizenship. I may say that we have individuals in this country who will be citizens of Canada under this bill, but who will not be allowed to vote. They are judges and other officials. In the district of Columbia in the United States citizens of the United States are debarred from voting. These are anomalies, but they do not destroy the fundamental situation to which I have referred. If my hon. friend has words that I have used recently on another occasion I would want to look at them, and perhaps to-morrow or the next day I shall say whether the high refinement he mentions is or is not justified by the language.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In dealing earlier with the communications between this government and the governments of the other nations of the commonwealth, the Secretary of State did not mention specifically, as I recall it, Ireland. He is probably aware that

it is suggested, and perhaps more than suggested, that certain sections of the bill had been drafted not merely in consultation with the government of Ireland or Eire, but at its request and that certain provisions had accordingly been inserted. Would the Secretary of State clear up that point because it is a matter of interest to the house in the light of information given thus far?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say that no section of this bill was put in at the instigation of anyone outside the constituted authorities of the government of this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That statement in the paper was quite wrong?


Paul Joseph James Martin: To what statement is the hon. member referring?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am referring to the Winnipeg Free Press. There was an article there on the subject.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I wish to make one comment on the point raised by the hon. member for St. John-Albert which, in my opinion, the Secretary of State brushed aside too lightly. I should like to come back to what was said by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, when he spoke about consultation and agreement. I do not suppose any of us will accuse Mr. Lapointe of derogating from the rights of anybody in this country. I would think that these two words which he used and which I think were clearly used in connection with this particular thing we are talking about were not used lightly. The minister says that we did have consultation. I am, like my seatmate, a new member here and probably I do not understand these high matters. All I have to say is that if tfeis were a business transaction nothing that has been said would suggest that we have had the kind of consultation which business friends would have with each other. I will admit that a good deal depends on what was in the cable which was sent. If the cable was a full disclosure drawing attention to these points which I think are points of substance, then maybe I would find it satisfactory, and no answer having been received, probably it would cover the matter. It does seem to me that in the troubled state of the world at the present time this is a poor time to be showing anything but the greatest courtesy to those with whom we are associated. I come back to these words, used, I think, not lightly by Mr. Lapointe, and I wish to say that to me it seems like playing with words to say that we have had anything that can properly be called consultation.



L946

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Citizenship
Thomas Reid: May I bring to the minister's attention a situation which still confronts those from Great Britain who are living in Canada, and will confront them after this bill passes. At the present time there are in this country well over one million persons who were born in the British isles. If they want to go across the line the United States immigration officer asks them where they were born. If they say, "Canada", they are passed through. If they say "Great Britain" they are stopped. They are looked upon as British subjects. After the bill passes, people from the British isles will receive, I believe,
[DOT] a certificate if they ask for it, just the same as others will. Therefore we shall have an anomaly there. Let us suppose that two people are going across the line. One has a certificate and the other has not. Then they may visit the old country. On the way back they will be challenged coming in. It will probably be no good for them to say: "I was in Canada long before the new bill went through." They will probably have to show their birth certificate and the date of entry even though they have been out of Canada for only one year.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: A passport would settle that so far as coming in is concerned.


Thomas Reid: They may not require a passport after the severe regulations are done away with, because prior to the war one could visit the old country without a passport. That condition may prevail again when this bill is passed. I am going to suggest to the minister-and I should like his comment -that a certificate be given to all those who came here from the British isles prior to the bill being passed. I know that to-day anyone on the continent of Europe who could show a Canadian citizenship paper would be looked upon as having something equal to a passage to heaven. That is how precious anything Canadian would seem in the eyes of those on the continent. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to the granting of a certificate to the million or more Britishers who are in this country, and who were here prior to the passage of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am grateful to the hon. member for raising that point, because it affords me an opportunity to give some information on that, and perhaps I can do it now. I wrote a letter to-day to a prominent citizen of this country who is in exactly the class that my hon. friend mentions. Under the bill all British subjects domiciled in Canada will, upon the passage of this bill, become Canadian citizens. The question is asked, what provision 63260-66
is made for giving them certificates so that they can avoid the sometimes humiliating situations in which they find themselves? Perhaps at this point I might answer an inquiry that has been raised in the newspapers as to how a British person who has already been in Canada for five years or more would acquire a certificate if he wanted to get one. Such a person who has been here for five years or more would be a Canadian citizen automatically as soon as the bill comes into force. No naturalization procedure, nor any certificate will be necessary. However, many of these people will undoubtedly want to get certificates simply to have them as a matter of proof, and the bill provides for such situations.
Under section 11 (a) of the bill a certificate can be issued to quiet any doubt as to whether a person has the status of Canadian citizen. This does not require the whole naturalization procedure to be gone through all over again if the minister is satisfied that the person's claim is valid. In addition, under section 39 (i) regulations may be made as to "the manner of proof of Canadian citizenship and the granting of special certificates for such purpose". Under these regulations provision will certainly be made for British subjects who have become Canadian citizens without getting certificates but who later wish to acquire them.


Douglas King Hazen: Will the minister place on record the contents of the cables that were sent to other members of the British Commonwealth with regard to the provisions of this bill, or the reasons why he should not do so?


Paul Joseph James Martin: So far as I am personally concerned there is no objection, but the hon. gentleman knows that these are privileged documents. Consent of the other parties will have to be obtained. I shall make inquiries at once as to whether that consent is available from the other parties. If so, I see no reason for not tabling them.
Mr. COLDWELI,: I have just one question. This afternoon the point was raised by an hon. member as to what the status of a citizen of Eire is in connection with the commonwealth at this time, and in particular with regard to this bill. That question has not been answered; it is an interesting one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. gentleman wish to deal with that now or when we come to the appropriate section?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I do not mind.

Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps it would be better to leave it; there is a section later under which that comes up. I am prepared to deal with it now or at that time, but it is an involved discussion. I am prepared for it, but I think it comes more appropriately under section 28.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: As long as the minister does not overlook it at that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I do I know I shall be reminded.


Major James William Coldwell: We shall not forget it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 2-Interpretation.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to paragraph (g) at the top of page 2, which gives a definition to "country of the British commonwealth." I am concerned particularly with the possible extension of the list of countries included in the first schedule to the act. Paragraph (g) reads:
"country of the British commonwealth" means for the purposes of this act a country listed in the first schedule to this act or a country declared for the purposes of this act to be a country of the British commonwealth of nations by proclamation issued under this act, and includes. in the case of any such country, all colonies, dependencies or territories thereof.
I take it that if dominion status were accorded to India, for instance, the purpose of this section is to clothe the governor in council with power to include India within the number of countries embraced in the first schedule to the bill. There may be a question of draftsmanship raised here as well as the question of principle in regard to clothing the governor in council with very wide power to extend the list of member nations of the commonwealth set out in the first schedule. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that power has been clearly reserved in other sections of the bill to deal with this matter 'by proclamation? He will notice the words:
... or a country declared for the purposes of this act to be a country of the British commonwealth of nations by proclamation issued under this act . . .
I wonder if the minister is satisfied, if the intention of this paragraph is to permit the inclusion of other countries which may acquire dominion status, that there is power elsewhere in the bill to accomplish that purpose by proclamation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say I am quite satisfied from discussions with the proper departments, External Affairs and Justice, that there is no doubt about our right under this section. My hon. friend will note that the
'Mr. Cold

*!!.]
phrase "country of the British commonwealth" is a term that has been carried over. There was no item in the definition of the old act, but the first schedule was the same in principle as the one in this bill. The first schedule to the old act was drawn up in 1914 and never changed. It is now brought up to date to cover the countries of the commonwealth.


Major James William Coldwell: What about India?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend will permit me I want to be quite clear on this question as a matter of draftsmanship, and I am not raising this question lightly. I should think there would have to be found elsewhere in the bill some definite provision clothing the governor in council with power to do by proclamation what is referred to here. At the moment apparently the only provision in the act for such inclusion by proclamation is in these definitions, which seem to me insufficient for the purpose, so that I raise that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The difficulty is that now we are anticipating the other sections, but section 39 provides:
The governor in council may make regulations generally for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this act . . .
That is the enabling section.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is a specific power,
and it does not appear there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the section under which this will be done. With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Rosetown Biggar-


Major James William Coldwell: What point?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In reference to India-I am glad he asked that question, because there has been some misapprehension in certain sections of the press on this very subject. A citizen of India or a resident in the colonies depends for his nationality status upon the common law of England and upon the United Kingdom British nationality and status of aliens act. The United1 Kingdom is one of the countries listed in the first schedule of this bill, and section 2 (g) states that when reference is made in the bill to a country of the British commonwealth it means a country listed in the sch,ed>-ule and includes, in the case of any such country, all colonies, dependencies or territories thereof. It is quite clear, therefore, that a person in the colonial empire or in India who is covered1 by the United Kingdom act and who is a British subject under that act will be recognized as a British subject under this bill. The hon. gentleman is likely

Canadian Citizenship
referring to an editorial which appeared in Saturday Night. I can only say that the observations in that connection are clearly not in accordance with the fact, because the statement in the editorial that the intention of the present bill is to exclude East Indians from the status of British subject is clearly erroneous.


Major James William Coldwell: Why not make it clear in our own bill? Why depend upon a British act to clarify the definition of "a British subject." Why should we refer to the United Kingdom and make the United Kingdom inclusive of a great dependency like India, for example?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a good historical reason. The list of countries included in the schedule are countries having their own nationality acts, and this arrangement not only is the result of several conferences but is conceived from the point of view of draftsmanship to be the effective way of dealing with the situation. My hon. friend will appreciate that this is a complicated measure. We gave consideration to that point, and after great consideration we thought this was the best and most effective way of dealing with it. When we come to another section I will show why that is so.


Major James William Coldwell: The reason I have difficulty in my own mind in approving this particular method of dealing with it is this. Here we are setting up an act dealing particularly with Canadian citizenship. We are looking forward to establishing something which has been implicit for a long time, so they say, but which has never had statute law to support it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Implicit for limited
purposes.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, for limited purposes. If we are doing that, then should we not go the whole distance and decide ourselves under this, our own bill, who shall be regarded as British subjects for the purposes of our own legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is specifically what we have done. These other countries have no acts of their own.


Major James William Coldwell: Why refer to an act of the United Kingdom?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because we are dealing with the question of common status. Perhaps on reflection my hon. friend will see that I am right, if he will think the matter over.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall be glad to think it over.
63260-66J


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest that my hon. friend do so.


Major James William Coldwell: But the minister says it is a complicated matter, and one's thoughts are not always clear on complicated matters.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I only wish to contradict the hon. member for Temiscouata, who said there was in the bill no definition of a Canadian citizen. In my opinion there is a definition in too many words. It is covered by sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. It takes five sections to cover the definition.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not a definition; a
description.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: The only true definition- and my colleague is right-that we can find is in section 2 <a), which says:
"Canadian citizen" means a person who is a Canadian citizen under this act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Surely that is clear.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: If hon. members of the committee will follow me, I might as well say, '"Apple tree' means a tree which is an apple tree in Canada." That is exactly the sort of definition we have here. It is completely useless and, to use the words sometimes used by the hon. member for Temiscouata, it is ridiculous. So that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Outremont:
That subsection (a) be removed and that the following subsections (b) to (n) inclusive be relettered (a) to (m) inclusive.
I say that subsection (a) should be removed; it does not mean a thing. After all, it costs money to print these bills.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say is I agree with what my hon. friend says. However, he probably knows there is before the judicial committee a case which deals with this matter. This is a matter of drafting, and I have to rely upon the drafting officials, and the law officers of the crown. They have said that while there were definitions of a particular status by way of description in sections 4, 5, 9 and 10, in the interpretation section there should be some reference. The purpose of paragraph (a) is to satisfy that exigency of draftsmanship as conceived by the judicial committee in that particular case.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Could we not say: a "Canadian citizen, under this measure, is defined by sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9." That would mean something. But what we have here is ridiculous, where it simply states that a Canadian citizen means a person who is a Canadian citizen under this act. If the privy council
Canadian Citizenship

has rendered a decision of that kind, then I am one who would want abolition of appeals to the privy council.
(Translation):
To elaborate on what I was saying a few moments ago, let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that we have for many years made a laughing stock of ourselves. There are ridiculous things in our statutes; this is a striking example of the sheerest absurdity, and we are going to leave it in our legislation.


Jean-François Pouliot: I appreciate what has been said about sections 4, 5, 9 and 10, but that is not what I want. What I want is a definition of "citizenship", and there is none in the bill. What I want is a definition of nationality, and there is none in the bill. What I want is a definition of naturalization, and there is none in the bill. What I want is a definition of "status of aliens," and there is none in the bill.
1	think it is necessary to have these definitions. If it is not too late to-morrow, with the assistance of my able colleagues we may try to draft something to be offered at that time. In the meantime I should hope that the section might stand, to give us an opportunity to have those definitions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One other very important
reason, which I omitted to point out, is that there is a definition of "Canadian citizenship" under existing law, in the Immigration Act. This bill simply says that "Canadian citizen" means a person who is a Canadian citizen under this act.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: How does it read?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It defines "Canadian citizenship." At a later time the minister in charge will introduce a bill to amend section
2	of the Immigration Act. But at the present time that section is still law.


Maxime Raymond: One of the purposes of the bill, it 'is said, is to clarify the definition of "Canadian citizenship". If one refers to the Immigration Act he will find a definition of "Canadian citizen" which is much clearer than the one before us in this bill; because if one wishes to find the definition of "Canadian citizen", as set out in this bill, he must read practically the whole of it. In the Immigration Act one finds a clear definition.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Read it.


Maxime Raymond: I will read it. It states;
"Canadian citizen" means *
(i)	a person born in Canada who has not become an alien;
(ii)	a British subject who has Canadian domicile; or
[Mr. Lesage.J
(iii)	a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: A man is a man who is
not dead.


Maxime Raymond: A man is a man, and a woman is a woman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The definition my hon.
friend has just read from section 2 of the Immigration Act is not a full definition. It does not deal with the hundreds of situations which will arise, where we shall have to determine whether or not a person is a citizen.. The reason we bring in this provision lies in the very inadequacy of the definition in the Immigration Act.
I do not wish to deal with the sections we have not yet reached, but I must point out that section 4 deals with one group of people who, on the passage of this measure, become Canadian citizens. Other citizens are in the same category. But the Immigration Act does not deal with them, and because it does not we have this section. So that I cannot agree with my hon. friend when he states that the Immigration Act contains a satisfactory definition. It is simply a general statement which, when one comes to apply it to a specific case, does not help at all.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: A definition by contrast
is not a definition, and a definition by similitude is not a definition. Can we not say that "a Canadian citizen" is defined by sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the bill? That would mean something.


Douglas King Hazen: That is limiting.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why refer to them, then? You refer only to those sections which relate to the definition of "Canadian citizen."	Therefore you do not need to
specify.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Canadian citizen is a
composite, taking all of us together.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I refer to the first name in the first schedule, namely the United Kingdom. What does that include? I understand it is now known as the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. If so, should not "Northern Ireland" come after, "United Kingdom?" Then, does it include the Shetland islands, the Orkney islands, the Channel islands and the Isle of Man.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have to rely upon the officials who give me this information when they tell me that in this classifiation we are using the proper drafting term.

Canadian Citizenship


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then what does "Ireland" include?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar asked that question a while ago. My suggestion is that when we come to section 28 I shall deal with that in greater detail.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There may be times when persistence is not a virtue. However, I come back to the point I raised earlier, which -was offered in the hope of assisting the minister. With great respect may I say that if the minister is relying upon section 39 to provide the necessary powers to extend the list of countries within the first schedule, then, in my humble estimation, the powers conferred by section 39 are not adequate for the purpose. That section empowers the governor in council to make regulations generally for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of the bill. There is nothing in section 39. which expressly or by implication clothes the governor in council with power to extend the list of countries in the first schedule by proclamation. I suggest that this, being a matter of draftsmanship, might have further consideration. I suggest that there is some inadequacy in the draftsmanship.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say that the Department of Justice advises us that the section is satisfactory. Howmver, section 39 will not be reached to-night, and I shall give the matter further consideration.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) : Shall section 2 carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: Stand.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have a further question:	What about Jamaica?


Jean-François Pouliot: We shall have to teach the newcomer. What is Canadian citizenship? That is what they will ask us and we shall tell them to look at the bill. They will find that under the bill it means a person who is a Canadian citizen. They will have to read the whole bill to understand what it means, and when they have reached the end they will have forgotten the beginning. I do not wish to be unpleasant; far from it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are not unpleasant.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. The bill should contain a meaning. Some hon. members have spoken of immigrants from Europe and other countries to the east. The legislation should be clear. A description is not a definition. Before defining "Canadian citizenship" the word "citizenship" must be defined. There are
different meanings of this word to be found in Webster's dictionary, in the Century dictionary published by the Encyclopaedia Bri-tannica and in many other fine and complete dictionaries. We shall have to make our choice.
The great trouble is that we take definitions for granted without having them in a bill. It cannot be done like that and it is not good drafting to do it. I hold in my hand the Concise Oxford dictionary that is placed on the table for the use of hon. members. I should like to quote the definition of "citizen" that is given. I intend to give the definition contained in this dictionary, but if I go to the library and get Webster's I know I shall find another definition. Then there will be another definition in the Century dictionary, another one in the French encyclopaedia and so on. When we must refer to several sections of the bill to get the meaning of this word it simply means that a lot of embarrassment will be created for the people who must administer this legislation. Here is the definition of "citizen":
Burgess, freeman, of city; townsman; civilian; member, native or naturalized, of a state (usu. of; c. of the world, cosmopolitan); inhabitant of. Hence citizenhood, citizenship.
Then there is the medieval meaning of citesein, and so on. That is not clear.


Gordon Graydon: The bill is an improvement on that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Inasmuch as it is a repetition of the same word. I am not saying that we have been supplied with the best dictionary that there is. There are others more complete, but I am using this one because I have it at hand. I am sure my hon. friends realize the difficulty of the man on the street who wants to know what citizenship means and who looks at the dictionary. He finds "cosmopolitan", Cosmopolitan magazine. Here is the definition of nationality:
Being national, national quality; patriotic sentiment; one's nation (what is his n.?); a nation (men of all nn.); existence as a nation; race forming part of one or more political nations (-ity).


John Ritchie MacNicol: What does that mean?


Jean-François Pouliot: It must be an abbreviation for some profane language. Will every man in Canada have to have a copy of this Oxford dictionary in order to understand this? Then here is the definition of "naturalize":
Naturalize. Admit (alien) to citizenship; adopt (foreign word, custom & c.); introduce (animal, plant) into another country; become naturalized; free from conventions, make natural; free from the miraculous, place on naturalistic basis; pursue natural history. Hence naturalization.
Canadian Citizenship

Then there is the French "naturaliser". If hon. members are satisfied with that, they are easy to please. Let us see the definition of "status". I am not wasting time; I am just showing the trouble that every good Canadian, whether he is a citizen or not, will have when he goes to his dictionary to look up the meaning of "status". This is a new word referring to an autonomous nation under the Statute of Westminster. The definition given here is:
Social position, rank, relation to others, relative importance, (his s. is a matter of doubt, their s. is wholly different, his s. among novelists) ; (Law) person's relation to others as fixed by law; position of affairs, esp. s. (in) quo, unchanged position.


Ernest George Hansell: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister not think it may be confusing to leave the definition of "domicile" as it is now in paragraph (j) ? The common law definition of "domicile" has nothing to do with duration of time at all. Therefore I suggest, in order to avoid any possible confusion, that the words "for the purposes of this act" be introduced after the first word "domicile" in paragraph (j). I suggest that ;he introduction of these words would remove my possibility of confusion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am prepared to accept
that amendment. The words were in there originally, but the Justice Department thought they were not necessary.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They will do no harm in there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly,
Mr. Chairman.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie) agreed to.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would refer to paragraph (i), which reads:
(i) "disability" means the incapacity of a minor, a lunatic or an idiot.
And then "minor" is defined in paragraph (1). I object to the inclusion of "minor" with lunatics and idiots.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This simply means that a
minor, a person who has not reached the age of twenty-one, cannot apply for citizenship. They can acquire it through the father or the mother.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does not paragraph (1)
cover minor sufficiently?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That merely defines one
of the groups who are classed as a disabled group.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not like that
definition of the word "minor". We have just had a war in which young persons, eighteen, nineteen and twenty years of age have borne arms for this country, and yet under this bill they are disabled from becoming citizens ^ the country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If they have borne arms
the,, are eligible.
Mr. v_ TDWELL: That is true of those who have already borne arms, but I was thinking of l inors who in the future might be made liable to bear arms. It seems to me that persons w. ' are liable to bear arms ought not to be put under a disability under this bill. That is the point I was making. In some provinces in Canada, in Saskatchewan and Alberta, persons may vote before they are twenty-one years of age, at eighteen years in Saskatchewan and nineteen in Alberta. Yet under this bill they are disabled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This would not affect the act in Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: I know it would not but I say that in this bill I do not like the inclusion of a minor, who is a person under twenty-one years of age, in the same class with lunatics or idiots. I do not like that at

United Nations
all. When we may appeal to young men under twenty-one years of age to bear arms and when young men under twenty-one may already vote in two provinces, they should not be categorized in this way. I think that definition should be eliminated from the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may agree with everything the hon. member has said but until the governing acts are changed, this will have to stay in law. We have made provision in section 10 whereby they may make their applications at the age of eighteen. I have gone as far as I could and I hope that in the not too distant future we shall go farther.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But is not the hon. member right in what he says that a minor who may be called upon to carry arms should not be classed with lunatics and idiots?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have said that I agree, but I have pointed out that we cannot go any farther in this bill because of the governing acts. I have gone as far as I could by changing section 10 to enable them to make application at the age of eighteen.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Nothing in this bill would prevent this house, when we come to amending the franchise act, from extending it to a person eighteen years old, because many of us are in favour of enfranchising minors who may be called upon to bear arms. Yet they are only eighteen-year old children under this act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite right.


Douglas King Hazen: In what sections of the bill is the word "disability" found?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In section 13.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.

The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I simply wish to call
two items: reconstruction, 604, and justice, 96. There are three departments now in supply and these are two more. I move that the items stand.
Items stand.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, April 30, 1946