1946-05-13

[Stage Direction]
"journal", mat 11
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On page 1 of the Ottawa Morning Journal of May 11, the following appears:
Two cabinet ministers, Works Minister Fournier and Fisheries Minister Bridges expressed themselves in favour of the present procedure of having parliament deal with divorce eases.
And on page 18 of the same newspaper I am quoted as saying:
So far as I can see there is no way you can get around the present problem. There is no way you can impose on the people of Quebec something they do not want-
Sir, I did not say on that occasion that I was in favour of the present system, nor for that matter did I say that I was against it, and further, I did not say, "There is no way you can impose on the people of Quebec something they ,do not want." What I did say, and what appears on page 1420 of Hansard of May 10, was as follows; and I quote:
-and so far as I can see at the present time there is no way that you can get around the present system. I am sure there is no desire on the part of any one to impose upon the province of Quebec a court which the majority of the people in that province do not want.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCULLOCH (Pictou) presented the first report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on May 10, 1946, be concurred in.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Carried.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Before the motion is carried may we have some explanation of what is passing the house?


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman will have to ask the leave of the house, as the motion has been carried.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I think the house is entitled to an explanation of the significance of this resolution.


Matthew MacLean: I was chairman of the committee, and all the bills as set out in the report were presented to the committee and agreed to unanimously.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. FRASER:: We have not heard the motion. We do not know what we are dealing with.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Let somebody else read
it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that the hon. gentleman is moving concurrence in a report of a committee, and I think the house might very well listen to the reading of the report.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What committee was it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The standing committee on standing orders.
(The Clerk Assistant read the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on May 10, 1946.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. LOW:: 1.	Who is'responsible for the maintenance of the Canadian dollar at a 10 per cent discount in terms of the American dollar?
2.	What has been the total net profit to the Foreign Exchange Control Board, resulting from the maintenance of the Canadian dollar at a fixed discount in terms of the American dollar since 1938?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	The rate of exchange for the United States dollar in Canada is established pursuant to section 24(1) of P.C. 2716 dated September 15, 1939, as amended by section 13(1) of P.C. 7378 dated December 13, 1940, which reads as follows:
"Subject to any instructions that may be given by the Minister of Finance, the foreign exchange control board may prescribe rates of exchange for transactions in foreign exchange pursuant to this order with respect to such foreign currencies and such transactions or kinds of transactions as the board may designate."
Questions

On September 16, 1939, the Minister of Finance wrote to the chairman of the foreign exchange control board, setting a rate of 10 per cent premium buying and 11 per cent premium selling for United States dollars.
On October 4, 1945, the Minister of Finance wrote to the chairman of the foreign exchange control board, setting a rate of 10 per cent premium buying and 101 per cent selling for United States dollars.
2.	The foreign exchange control board does not make profits as a result of the premium on the United States dollar. The profits of the special exchange fund account in the name of the Minister of Finance which was established by the Exchange Fund Act, 1935, and has been operated by the foreign exchange control board on behalf of the minister under the foreign exchange control order since September 15, 1939, are derived from the spread between the rates at which the board buys and sells foreign exchange and earnings on investments less the costs of operation of the exchange fund account and the board. In the near future the Minister of Finance proposes to table a rejfort giving details of the operation of foreign exchange control during the war period and statements of the revenue and expenditures of the exchange fund account.


INCOME TAX-FABMEBS-1944
Mr. BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue, Income Tax Division, sent to farmers, in recent months, forms for their 1944 income tax?
2.	Were such forms addressed by Ottawa or by income tax district offices?
3.	Will the Department of National Revenue, Income Tax Division, require farmers to file returns previous to 1944?
4.	Owing to the fact that the majority of farmers find it impossible to file a correct return of their business in 1944, will the Department of National Revenue require them to file a return for that year?
5.	Has the farmer the privilege of deducting from his income tax the cost of his income tax return, the preparation of which, owing to the multiplicity of questions and details to be answered and given, must be entrusted to an accountant, or other person familiar with accountancy ?
6.	Is the farmer entitled to deduct from his general working expenses the amount of wages that he would pay to hired men if he had no sons, which amount he does not officially pay over to his sons, but the total payment of which is used later towards their settling on a farm?
7.	Is the farmer entitled to deduct from his working expenses the amount for board which he gives to his sons who receive no fixed or regular wages, and, in the absence of wages, deduct the petty sums ivhich he gives them weekly or monthly, and which fall under the heading of ''expenses?"
8.	What is the maximum percentage that a farmer can deduct yearly from his income tax for the purchase of farm implements?
[Mr. Mayhevv. J


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	As a continuous procedure, as information discloses the necessity from time to time, the department sends to farmers and all other persons delinquent in filing their 1944 income tax returns, the forms, together with a letter requesting compliance with the law.
2.	By income tax district offices.
3.	All persons, farmers or otherwise, from time to time as information discloses delinquency, are requested to file income tax returns in accordance with the law.
4.	Yes. The return is required. The difficulties are dealt with subsequently thereto.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	If able-bodied sons, not claimed as dependents, regularly work during the year, the "amount for board" and wages actually paid as such are allowed as an expense.
8.	The question pertains to depreciation of purchased implements and depreciation varies in respect of various classes of farm implements. The expected useful life of the asset is reasonably known by each farmer and forms the basis of his initial request for depreciation.


FABM LOANS
Mr. WINKLER:: By years and by provinces, how much has there been loaned by the Canadian Farm Loan Board since its inception?


Mr. MAYHEW:: Fiscal Year		
Ended	British	
March 31	Columbia	Alberta1930	$ 682,092	$ 1,324,4181931	411,645	1,391,5781932	170,012	555,8691933	103,039	172,1521934	21,027	98,0471935	44,312	144,9301936	179,159	1,434,9111937	133,288	1,150,6451938	144,715	617,7611939	248,279	652,8801940	202,591	857,2931941	134,153	294,6671942	77,151	222,9131943	66,681	101,7051944	90,070	148,0421945	101,350	275,4211946	108,112	411,798$ 2,917,676	$ 9,855,030
Questions
Fiscal Year Ended		
March 31	Saskatchewan	Manitoba
1930			$ 41,858
1931			212,617
1932			305,650
1933			228,515
1934			122,842
1935			152,578
1936	$ 1,872,065	1,142,6041937	2,740,585	1,436,0461938	1,256,892	490,0811939	739,109	561,5991940	667,800	458,8841941	313,564	328,4541942	276,053	176,0921943	183,460	164,6501944	153,913	276,5071945	198,906	393,1781946	351,006	535,390$ 8,753,353	$ 7,027,545Fiscal Year Ended	March 31	Ontario	Quebec1930	$ 202,0001931	1,249,2321932	791,5921933	649,3681934	287,3711935	145,6871936	$ 1,013,984	1,292,2191937	1,033,136	3,922,5061938	915,896	1,391,6401939	877,370	810,6221940	905,992	849,0211941	641,172	778,3211942	.- 365,633	842,2461943	271,928	419,9381944	306,200	262,0151945	286,344	280,8781946	. 361,309	242,576$ 6,978,964	$14,417,232


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. ASHBY:: 1.	Is the Industrial Development Bank in
operation at the present time?
2.	If so, who are its directors and who is the chairman of the board of directors?
3.	Does the goverment have a representative on this directorate?
4.	What is its capitalization?
5.	How much did it ^cost" to establish this bank ?
Fiscal Year Ended	New	NovaMarch 31	Brunswick	Scotia1930	$ 281,641	$ 98,3681931	147,316	105,1001932	117,149	56,0721933	85,401	37,6401934	13,323	16,0201935	41,020	18,6801936	133,614	195,5061937	114,932	287,7071938	76,613	206,4121939	41,926	218,9361940	51,760	185,0651941	36,965	75,5991942	25,209	49,3891943	21,900	30,1331944	18,560	41,1901945	10,516	53,4481946	18,165	56,343$ 1,236,010	$ 1,731,608Fiscal Year	Prince	Ended	Edward	AllMarch 31	Island	Provinces1930	$ 2,630,3771931	3,517,4881932	1,996,3441933	1,276,1151934	558,6301935	547,2071936	$ 159,717	7,423,7791937	255,311	11,074,1561938	164,298	5,264,3081939	188,122	4,338,8431940	164,256	4,342,6621941	124,612	2,727,5071942	98,829	2,133,5151943	59,861	1,320,2561944	39,607	1,336,1041945	61.369	1,661,4101946	36,503	2,121,202$ 1,352,485	$54,269,9036.	What has been the cost of its operation up to December 31, 1945?7.	What is the total amount of loans to December 31, 1945?8.	Is the bank operating at a profit or a loss and what was its position as at December 31, 1945?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	G. F. Towers, president; E. G. Baker, W. C. Clark, C. G. Coote, D. Gordon, J. L. Holman, F. Magee, W. K. McKean, A.
Questions

Stewart Nichols, R. H. Milliken, A. C. Picard, L. P. St. Amour, E, J. Tarr, A. C. Taylor and W. D. Black.
3.	Yes, W. C. Clark, Deputy Minister of Finance.
4.	$25,000,000, of which $10,000,000 has been issued and paid up.
5.	The Industrial Development Bank is not a branch of the dominion government but a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada.
Section 29(3) of the Industrial Development Bank Act states, "The bank shall within ten weeks after the end of each fiscal year, transmit to the Minister of Finance in such form as he may prescribe, a statement of its accounts for the fiscal year together with such summary as he may deem desirable or as may be required by the Minister of Finance." This return for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1945, was tabled in the House of Commons on December 6, 1945.
6 and 8. Details of the operations of the Industrial Development Bank will be found in the report for the year ended September 30, 1945. Operating expenses totalled $110,666.26, earnings totalled $308,509.05, leaving net earnings of $197,842.79. These net earnings were appropriated as follows: To contingency reserve, $100,000; to reserve fund, $97,842.79.
7. Section 29(1) of the Industrial Development Bank Act requires that "The bank shall, within twenty-one days following the end of each calendar month, make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance in such form as he may prescribe, a statement of its assets and liabilities at the close of business on the last day of the preceding month." This statement, as at December 31, 1945, appeared in the Canada Gazette of January 26, 1946, and showed loans and investments (excluding dominion government securities) at $1,360,871.29.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-MANITOBA
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	What amount has been paid by the farmers of Manitoba into the Prairie Farm Assistance Act fund since its inception?
2.	How many farmers in Manitoba have received benefits under this Act?
3.	What is the total amount of such benefits received by the farmers of Manitoba?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.
1939-	40	
$333,453	131940-	41	
354,813	761941-	42	
339,969	871942-	43	
481,974	501943-	44	..	1	
779,490	761944-	45	
754,366	361945-	46	(to February 28, 1946) ..	428,896	30

1939-	40	
6,9811940-	41	
6,3701941-	42	
1,0091942- 43	
-1943-	44	
1261944-	45	
1,4151945-	46	
3243.	16,2251939-	40	
$875,856	631940-	41	
615,109	231941-	42	
36,493	671942- 43	
-1943-	44	
16.685	251944-	45	
163,420	971945-	46 (to March 31, 1946) ....	23,718	75



$1,731,284 50 QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS VETERANS LAND ACT-CONSTITUENCY OF LISGAR


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Were members of the armed forces who were assigned duties, or volunteered, and served in the Pacific theatre of hostilities assured higher rates of pay than elsewhere?
2.	On what date did such increased pay start, and is it still in effect?
3.	What were the increased rates of pay for the different ranks?
4.	Have some officers and men who served in the Pacific theatre been denied the higher rates? If so, why?


USE OF EXHIBITION BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	What exhibition buildings and grounds were taken over by purchase, expropriation or rental by the government since the start of the war, stating where located and for what purpose?
2.	What were the purchase prices or rental charges per year, and for what period stating date of commencement and date of termination of occupancy?

Questions as Orders for Returns
3.	What was the total expenditure made by the government for or on each property for (a) enlargements; (b) improvements; (c) equipment, and does such revert to benefit of original owners?
4.	What were the fire losses or other damages at each property while in possession of the government stating amount of insurance recovered and cost of renewing or replacing property in each instance?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- LEGAL SERVICES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many lawyers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have received payments for services rendered, or fees, from the Wartime Prices and Trade Board since 1939?
2.	What are their names, and how much has each received?
3.	Are any balances due on accounts rendered? If so, to whom and how much?


CANTEEN FENDS
Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	What is the amount paid to the Regimental Funds Board for the credit of canteen funds since September 1, 1939 by (a) naval forces; (b) army; (c) air force; (d) Canadian Legion War Services, Knights of Columbus, Y.M.C.A., Salvation Army and from all other sources including donations?
2.	How is this money invested, and what rate of interest is being earned?
3.	For what purpose are the funds to be used?
4.	Who are the members administering these funds at the present time, what is the number of their staff and what salaries are paid to them and to their staff?


RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE IN VANCOUVER
Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: 1.	What is the total area of office space rented in private buildings in the city of Vancouver by all federal government departments, crown companies, royal commissions, and any other such federal government agencies?
2.	What is the total area of office space in the three government buildings on Fourth avenue west in the city of Vancouver, occupied during the war by the navy, army and air force?
3.	How many veterans in the city of Vancouver have been unable to secure office space to resume their professional or business careers after discharge?


OFFICERS OF PERMANENT FORCE DISCHARGED WITHOUT PENSION
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	How many officers of the permanent forces in (a) navy; (b) army; (c) air force, have been discharged since V-E day from the service without pension for (1) physical disability; (2) misconduct or inefficiency; (3) any other reason?
2.	How many as above are pending?


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	What was the total cost of administration of the Family Allowances Act, 1944, for the first six months of its operation?
2.	How many (a) temporary; (b) permanent employees of the federal government were employed in the administration of the act as of December 31, 1945, and how many are presently employed?
3.	How many of such employees receive salaries (a) under $1,500;	(b) from $1,500 to
$2,500; (c) from $2,500 to $3,600; (d) above $3,600; (e) of $5,000 and over, and what was the total of wages or salaries paid from July 1, 1945 to December 31, 1945?
4.	What is the name and duties of each person engaged in the administration of the act in receipt of $5,000 and over, and what is the amount of salary or other remuneration paid in each ease?
5.	What is the total annual rent paid or assessed (for bookkeeping purposes) for premises used in the administration of the Family Allowances Act?
6.	What is the total amount spent for the purchase of premises used in the administration of the act ?
7.	How many investigators are employed under the act, and what number employed in each province?
8.	What was the total cost of investigations for the first six months of operation of the act?
9.	How much money was spent for advertising (a) by radio; (b) by newspapers and periodicals; (c) by mail, during the first six months of the operation of the act?
10.	What was the total amount paid in family allowances during the first six months of the operation of the act?
11.	How many families were in receipt of family allow'ances at the end of the first six months of the operation of the act?
12.	How many families are presently in receipt of family allowances?


Mr. MARTIN:: Order for return.


Mr. STIRLING:: The answers are simple and apply to only one department. Why could this not be answered as a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It concerns two departments, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Public Works.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MURPHY:: For a copy of all contracts, agreements, letters and other documents in lieu of contracts written or entered into at any time since September 1, 1945, between the Polymer Corporation Limited and Imperial Oil Limited, and between the Polymer Corporation Limited and St. Clair Processing Corporation Limited, and between the Polymer Corporation Limited and Dow Chemical Company of Canada;
Also for a copy of all orders in council relating to Polymer Corporation Limited dated since September 1, 1945.
Motions for Papers



OWEN SOUND TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES

Joseph Warner Murphy: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, contracts and other documents from January 31, 1942 to May 1, 1946, exchanged between the Department of Transport or other government department and the Dominion Transportation Company and the Owen Sound Transportation Company.
Also a copy of all orders in council relating to the Dominion Transportation Company and the Owen Sound Transportation Company since January 31, 1942?



POLYMER CORPORATION-DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

Joseph Warner Murphy: For a copy of all contracts, agreements, letters and other documents in lieu of contracts, written or entered into at any time between January 1, 1942, and September 1, 1945, between the Polymer Corporation Limited, and Dow Chemical Company of Canada.
Also a copy of all orders in council relating to Dow Chemical Company of Canada dated since January 1, 1942.



GRANDVIEW, MAN., PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. ZAPLITNY:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the postmaster general's department or other government departments and any persons or organizations, from 1939 to date, in connection with the construction of a public building at Grandview, Manitoba.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved:: That a joint committee of the senate and house of commons be appointed to examine and consider the Indian Act, Chapter 98, R.S.C., 1927, and amendments thereto and to suggest such amendments as they may deem advisable, with authority to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general and, in particular, the following matters:
1.	Treaty rights and obligations.
2.	Band membership.
3.	Liability of Indians to pay taxes.
4.	Enfranchisement of Indians both voluntary and involuntary.
5.	Eligibility of Indians to vote at dominion elections.
6.	The encroachment of white persons on Indian reserves.
7.	The operation of Indian day and residential schools.
8.	And any other matter or thing pertaining to the social and economic status of Indians and their advancement, which, in the opinion of such a committee should be incorporated in the revised act.

That the following members be appointed to act on behalf of the House of Commons on the said joint committee, namely, Messrs. Arsenault, Blackmore, Brown, Brunelle, Bryce, Case, Castle-den, Charlton, Farquhar, Gariepy, Gibson (Comox-Alberni), Glen, Ilarkness, Little, Mac-Nicol, MacLean, Matthews (Brandon), Raymond (Wright), Reid, Richard (Gloucester), Stanfield, Stirling.
_ That a message be sent to the senate requesting their honours to appoint senators to act as members of the senate on the said special joint committee.
That the said committee have power to appoint from its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary to deal with specific phases of the problem aforesaid with power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and to print such materials from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and members of the House of Commons and the Senate.
That the said committee shall report from time to time and that the provisions of standing order 65 limiting the number of members on special committees be suspended in relation thereto and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.
He said; The motion before the house in a very real sense is self-explanatory. It represents the initial step toward a review by a committee of parliament of the legislation relating to the administration of Indian affairs, usually referred to as the Indian Act. It is, in the judgment of the government, highly desirable, one might almost say imperative, before a revision of the Indian Act is undertaken, certainly before the revised act is submitted to the house, that existing legislation, together with amendments that may be deemed necessary, be carefully studied not only from the point of view of the government and the taxpayer, but also from the point of view of the Indian, and in the light of his present-day needs.
Requests-I might almost say, demands- for this inquiry have come to us from representative groups of Indians, from church authorities, and from groups of citizens who over a period of years have displayed an active interest in the advancement of the Indian population of this country. It was at first suggested that a royal commission be appointed to investigate and report upon Indian treaty rights, the taxation of Indians employed off reserves, the right of the Indian to have representation in parliament, the Indian educational system, and a number of other matters. While the government from the outset conceded that the revision of the act was overdue and that the requests for an inquiry were not unreasonable, it was not an easy matter to decide on the exact procedure that would be likely to bring about the best results.

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
As I intimated to the house at the last session, I had at that time an open mind on the question as to whether a royal commission or a committee of parliament would serve best the purpose we had in mind. May I remind the house that the welfare of the Indian is the sole responsibility of the federal government. It is not a responsibility shared by the government with the provinces. This expression of opinion applies particularly to the enactment of legislation relating to Indian affairs.
After careful consideration the government reached the decision that a committee such as the one now proposed is in strict conformity with sound parliamentary practice. The task of undertaking a thorough undertaking of the Indian and his needs is, in our judgment, a definite responsibility of parliament and one that we should not seek to evade.
It is not my intention to enter into a lengthy discussion of the resolution before us at this stage. The terms of reference, if I may refer to them as such, are not designed to restrict in any way the scope or the character of the inquiry. They are presented in the form in which they appear rather for the purpose of emphasis. It is the desire of the government that the work of the committee should be as thorough, as comprehensive and as searching as it is possible to make it. With tips thought in mind we shall do everything possible to have Indians and responsible citizens representing Indians appear as witnesses. We are not only willing but anxious to have the best counsel and advice that can be obtained from Indians and from citizens who will make respresentations on their behalf.
When I took part in the discussion of a motion to grant old age pensions to Indians at the last session I expressed the opinion that the dissatisfaction which appeared to exist among Indians was in the main attributable to certain causes which are readily ascertainable. May I be permitted to summarize what I said at the time?
I would not be fair to the house, however, if I sought to create an impression that any difficulties which exist in the administration of Indian affairs were due in whole or even in part to our lack of information as a government on existing conditions among the Indians. I am rather convinced that the measure of economy insisted upon by the Canadian taxpayer from 1929 to the outbreak of war, the demands of the war itself, more rigid enforcement on the part of provincial governments of laws relating to hunting, trapping and fishincr. and the gradual encroachment of white citizens into areas where lands, although the property of the provinces, nominally at least had been recognized as exclusive Indian hunting and trapping areas, in the main have contributed to the conditions now confronting us. In any event the need for
a comprehensive programme based on the immediate and future needs of the Indian population is becoming increasingly apparent.
The return of the natural resources to the prairie provinces and the administration of the lands by the provincial governments for which provision was made in the terms of the agreements entered into at that time, imposed greater restrictions on a number of Indians engaged in hunting and trapping. The house will be interested to learn that prior to the return of the natural resources to the provinces, a survey in 1939 indicated that over
30,000	licences were issued to white trappers in that year throughout the various provinces and territories, excluding the maritimes, while not more than 15,000 licences had been granted to Indian trappers. The fact is that as the population of the country steadily increases, and the demands on the part of the citizens for land and other rights multiply, the Indian becomes subject to keener competition in fields of endeavour where for centuries he enjoyed a virtual monopoly.
It would appear that we have reached a stage in our development as a nation when economic conditions will force us to do one of two things: (1) purchase at public expense the additional lands and additional hunting and trapping rights for an Indian population of 128,000, increasing at the rate of 1,500 a year; or, (2) decide on an educational and welfare programme that will fit and equip the Indian to enter into competition with the white man not only in hunting and trapping but in agriculture and in the industrial life of the nation. While I have no desire to indulge in over-simplification; while I realize that there are many issues involved in the proposal before us, nevertheless I feel that we have here the crux of what is usually referred to as the Indian problem. I find it difficult to convince myself that an extending Indian reserve system, imposing controls and wardships and reducing Indian responsibility to the minimum, would be or could be in the interests of these people.
The educational and welfare programme to which I have referred cannot, in the nature of things, accomplish much overnight. Nor should it be aimed at making the Indian into a white man. The Indian, as I see it, should retain and develop many of his native characteristics, and should ultimately assume the full rights and responsibilities of democratic citizenship.
I should like, with your permission, to read into the record for the benefit of the members of the committee particularly, a brief historical summary of Indian administration in this country.

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
Since the inception of British rule in North America the Indians have been regarded as a special and separate responsibility of government. From the time of the first British settlements in New England the title of the Indians to lands occupied by them was conceded and compensation was made to them for the surrender of their hunting grounds. The crown has always reserved to itself the exclusive right to treat with the Indians for the surrender of their lands, and this rule, confirmed by the royal proclamation of October 7, 1763, is still adhered to. In 1670, during the reign of Charles II, instructions were given to the governors of the colonies which, among other matters, directed that Indians who desired to place themselves under British rule should be well received and protected. There are still of record numerous agreements and treaties, dating back as far as the year 1664, made by the British with the Indians of New England, while Canada was still under French government. Later it was found necessary to establish an office devoted solely to the administration of Indian affairs, and in 1755 Sir William Johnson was appointed Indian superintendent with headquarters in the Mohawk valley country of the Six Nations confederacy in what is now the state of New York. Following the- revolution, the office was removed to Canada and the title of the position was changed to superintendent general of Indian affairs. From that time on a continuing administrative organization has been maintained for the protection and advancement of the Indian population. At the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century the department was divided. The office of the superintendent general and the secretary of the department was established in Montreal, and that of the deupty superintendent general and assistant secretary, at Fort George, Niagara; and by a general order of May 13,1816, the management of Indian affairs was placed under the control of the commander of the forces in the British North American provinces.
By another general order of April 13, 1830, the management of Indian affairs in Upper Canada was placed under Sir John Colborne, lieutenant governor for that province, while that in Lower Canada remained under military control. In 1830, by order of His Majesty's government, the Indian department in Upper Canada was separated from that of Lower Canada, the former being placed under His Excellency Sir John Colborne, with Colonel Sir James Givins as chief superintendent for the province. The department in Lower Canada was placed under the control of the military secretary at Quebec who at that time
rMr. Glen.]
was Lieutenant Colonel Couper, and Lieutenant Colonel D. C. Napier was removed to the military secretary's office to act as secretary, with the pay and allowances of superintendent.
After the Act of Union of 1840, the head office of the Department of Indian Affairs, now united, continued to be at the seat of government, which under the old province of Canada was moved from one place to another. Until 1860 the imperial government was responsible for the management and expense of Indian affairs, but in that year it was decided that the province of Canada should assume this charge. By the act 23 Victoria, chapter 151, entitled "An Act respecting the management of the Indian lands and property", the management of Indian affairs was brought under the control of the Crown Lands Department from July 1, 1860, the commissioner of crown lands being from that date chief superintendent of Indian affairs.
After confederation the administration of Indian affairs, which had been under the management of the several provinces, came under the control of the Dominion of Canada, by the British North America Act, "powers of the parliament", dominion, section 91, subsection 24, "Indians, and Lands Reserved for the Indians". Pursuant to this authority the dominion parliament enacted various legislation concerning Indians, which was first consolidated in a single act, as it still is, in 1876.
Immediately following confederation, Indian Affairs was attached to the Department of the Secretary of State, and in 1873, when the Department of the Interior was created, Indian Affairs was attached to it as the Indian branch. In 1880 the Indian Act was again consolidated, and it was provided, section 4:
There shall be a department of the civil service of Canada to be called the Department of Indian Affairs, over which the superintendent general of Indian affairs shall preside.
Chapter 28, 43, Victoria, 1880. Accordingly, Indian Affairs became a separate department and remained so until December 1, 1936, when by the mines and resources act it became the Indian Affairs branch of the newly-created Department of Mines and Resources. It is interesting to note that when the department of Indian Affairs was created in 1880 it comprised twenty-three officers at headquarters and one hundred in the field. To-day the Indian Affairs branch has a staff of about 70 at headquarters and 700 in the field. In addition, there is the Indian health service recently transferred to the Department of National Health and Welfare. These services employ a

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
staff of approximately 600, including physicians, nurses, and other employees, with sixteen hospitals.
In 1880 the total expenditure from parliamentary vote for Indians was, in round figures, $500,000. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1945-last year-it was, exclusive of family allowance payments, approximately $6,000,000. This growth in personnel and expenditures represents increased and extended services to the Indians.
There are at present 2,000 Indian reserves, varying in size from a few acres to five hundred square miles. The group unit of Indian population is the "band", which means a body of Indians having lands or funds in common held in trust for them by the crown. There are six hundred of these bands, varying in size from a single family to more than 5,000 souls.
The unit of field administration is the Indian agency in charge of a resident local official, the Indian agent. At this date there are ninety-eight of these agencies. Closely connected with the Indian agency organization is the Indian school system, comprising 75 residential and 258 Indian day schools. These are operated by the department in conjunction with the leading religious denominations. At many of the agencies there are farming instructors, and in a number of localities the Indians receive supervision in specialized pursuits such as fur development projects, handicrafts and other activities.
The house will be interested and perhaps a little surprised to learn that the Indian Act of 1880, with amendments made from time to time, is still in effect. It has not been the subject of a general revision since that year. The basis of this act, or indeed of all Indian legislation and policy under British government in North America, is the special protection of the Indian in his person, his property, his advancement and his general well-being. The Indian is subject to certain restrictions but enjoys a measure of local selfgovernment under the act. Those who do not wish to remain under Indian status may, on their own application if found qualified, be enfranchised by the governor in council, whereupon they cease to be Indians under the law and acquire full citizenship.
In passing, I may say that many Indians are taking advantage of that provision. Only last Tuesday I signed fifteen orders enfranchising Indians.


Mr. SENN:: Is the act of 1880, together with subsequent amendments, consolidated?


James Allison Glen: Yes. We have it here; it is consolidated for office purposes only. All the provisions of the act together with the amendments are here. A rough draft of the revised act will be submitted to the committee during the course of its deliberations. This rough draft represents an attempt on the part of the officials of the Indian Affairs branch to bring existing legislation more into accord with the needs of the Indians and present-day tendencies. I am personally of the opinion, however, that before the draft is considered the committee will wish to hear a comparatively large number of witnesses who will be anxious to make representations and express points of view. The task is assuredly not an easy one. If approached in the right spirit, however, as I am sure it will be, the results should be gratifying and encouraging to the white citizen and the Indian alike.
Finally, let me say that while a great deal of criticism has been directed against Indian administration during the last twenty-five years or so, there is a brighter side to this picture, the significance of which should not be overlooked. In numbers the race is increasing; in educational effort the Indian is developing, slowly perhaps, but nevertheless developing toward a better acquaintance with the ways of the white race. His blood is becoming steadily more mixed, which, in fact, points toward ultimate assimilation. It is possible, in my judgment, to say that too much emphasis has been frequently placed upon the fancied injustice of requiring the Indian to conform to changing conditions. In the last analysis it is both just and expedient to help the Indian to adjust himself to these conditions. It is neither necessary nor merciful in the long run to encourage him perpetually to continue in a state of backwardness or semi-backwardness. Nevertheless, as I have already indicated, the process of assimilation cannot be unduly hurried, nor must it be rushed. Time, we are told, heals all wounds, and in this healing process the soars of race tension, conflict and misunderstanding will, I feel sure, disappear.
Judging by the expressions of opinion that have been given not only in this house but all over the country, showing an interest in Indian affairs, I am sure the house will agree that this resolution is the first step to be taken, namely, the appointment of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. In that committee, which will have the revised amendments suggested by the Indian Affairs branch, and where witnesses from all over the country who may desire to express opinions and give information to the
Indian Affairs-Joint Committee

committee, will be heard, I am satisfied that the work, which seems momentous in the beginning may prove not so difficult in the end. I believe that out of this committee will come legislation and suggestions in administration which will help the development of the Indian, which I am sure is the desire of the house. For that reason I am moving this motion, hoping that the house will see fit to pass it and that the committee will be set up accordingly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As one who for many years has been interested in the study of Indian affairs and of all that pertains to the advancement of the Indian, I rise not to delay but to support the principles of the resolution as enunciated by the minister. I believe that the present minister is the first minister who has planned to inquire in a big way into every possible means of improving the whole Indian picture in Canada. With [DOT]that objective of the minister-and I am sure in this I am speaking for other hon. members of this house-I am in hearty accord.
I have often wondered why it was that the Indians of Canada, who have been so long under the control of the white man, have not advanced as rapidly as have the Maoris of New Zealand and even the coloured races in South Africa. In New Zealand the Maoris now have a number of representatives in the parliament of that country, and the same is true of South Africa. I am not sure whether the coloured people of South Africa themselves sit in the South African parliament. My memory is that they elect white people to represent them in parliament, and that these white representatives of the South African coloured races speak for them. For that reason I have wondered why our so-called coloured native race'-they are of a reddish or copper colour-have not advanced as far as the native races of the countries to which I have just referred. They have long been under the control of the white man. First they were under the control of the British-I am now speaking of the British in New York-under Sir William Johnson, the great administrator, and later under his son, Sir John Johnson. In Canada I believe Sir John Johnson was the first Indian administrator. If I may interject a suggestion I should like the minister to go down to Williamstown in the county of Glengarry some day where the first Indian administration house was built by Sir John Johnson. His house is still standing. It has passed out of the hands of the Johnson family, but I think it would be a fine gesture on Canada's part to purchase Sir John Johnson's

old house, if it is for sale, and set it up as a museum of, Indian relics in that part of Canada.
As I said at the beginning, I have been intensely interested' in Indian affairs over a long period of time. My interest ha-s necessitated some travel and impelled me to visit many reservations. In the course of these journeys to the reservations I would first seek out the chief of the immediate band or branch on whose reservation I then was to . ascertain from him all I could and to inquire into what improvements could be made in Indian administration. From what the minister has said, I have no doubt that he intends to call to the committee the main chiefs, or those who represent them, of the various bands.
I myself have paid many visits to the Six Nations in the riding of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Charlton) and that of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). In those ridings are the remnants of the famous Six Nations. I am not just sure how many of the branches came to Brant and Haldimand, but certainly the Mohawks did. The Oneidas did and the Muncies went a little farther west in the county of Elgin and are still there. The Delawares were not of the Six Nations. They settled further west at Moraviantown in Kent. I believe there are Senecas, Oneidas, Onon-dagas and Mohawks in Brant. They were of the famous Iroquois tribe.
I hope that the outcome of the committee's investigation will result in a much greater advancement of Indian life along the line, economically, educationally and in a business way, so that we as a parliament may be the means of stepping them up to a much higher level than they occupy to-day. In my travels I have found a great difference as between various reserves in the advancement of the Indian tribes. As far as I recall, the Iroquois in Brant and Haldimand are perhaps more advanced than any other Indians in Canada, though it may be that some of the tribes in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have also made considerable advances, because they have been long associated with white men. If we compare what they have achieved with what has been achieved by members of the coloured race who have come to Canada, principally from Jamaica and the southern United States, we have to admit that the coloured race have most assuredly achieved a very great deal in every walk of life. The Indians also have achieved something-although I observe from what the minister has said, not as much as he would like to see.

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
In this investigation I am quite sure all hon. members of this house, including those serving on the committee, will use their best judgment and seek the best possible advice to draw up recommendations designed to advance the status of our Indians all along the line. I am not going to enter into a detailed discussion at the moment, because I do not think it is necessary. I could say a great deal about the Indians, but that can be done in committee, and if I said very much now I would simply repeat it in the committee later. I feel that I have done my duty by merely rising to support this proposal for the betterment of our Indians. It is high time we did something of this kind; in fact the time is long past when this should have been done. I am not blaming anyone. Having been here for seventeen years I know that almost invariably the Indian estimates come up in the last few hours of a session and are carried so rapidly that nothing can be said to advance the welfare of the Indians, with the exception of perhaps one or two of the principal speeches. So after this investigation is completed I hope much may be done for these native people.
Many Indian chiefs have given me their views on these matters. I have spoken to them all over Canada, as far north as at Arctic Red river; at lake Athabasca; the Norman Indians near where Norman Wells is now; the Stoneys in Alberta; the Fairford River Indians in northern Manitoba, and the Moose Lake Indians, also in northern Manitoba. Perhaps I should not have mentioned any particular bands at all, but now that I have done so 1 should mention the Blackfeet Indians; and in the tribe in the riding of the hon. member for Lethbridge, right in his home town of Card-ston, I met some chiefs of this band, whose name always slips my mind.


Mr. RLACKMORE:: The Bloods.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is it. I asked the chief why they called themselves the Bloods, and he replied, "Well, you know when a rich man has a son he is called a young blood. A man who owns a fast race horse calls it a blood. We are an up and coming band of Indians, so we call ourselves the Bloods." That was his explanation as to how they got that name. It would be interesting, I believe, to ascertain the origin of all these Indian names.
Now, Mr. Speaker, following the example of the minister in proposing this resolution, I merely wish to repeat that I am heartily in accord with the proposal and sincerely hope that' it will result in a great advancement of the Indians all along the line so that they may take their place among the white men who owe so much to them. We have taken
away so much from them that we should try our best to advance their interests now. We might even consider having representatives of the Indians sitting in this house, just as the Maoris have in New Zealand. That is something which should be kept in mind in this connection. '	^


Mr. MAX CAMPBELL (The Battlefords):: First I should like to congratulate the minister, who is new in this department and who I think is tackling this job in a way that should bring success. I am glad he is setting up this committee to give all the members of the House of Commons an opportunity to help in the revision of the whole Indian Act. It is a big job, and I think those who have made any study whatever of the Indian problem will realize what a tremendous task lies ahead. For instance, the committee has to revise treaty rights and obligations. The treaties alone require a tremendous amount of study. The committee also will have to consider band membership, the liability of Indians, the encroachment of white persons on Indian reserves, and so on. During the last few months I have done quite a lot of reading on the history of the Indians, and I find that the whole story of the treatment of the Indians by the white men has been one of exploitation all the way through. Not long ago I was talking to an Indian, who said, "The white man is very greedy. He grabs this and he grabs that," and that is so. Whenever the Indians had a reserve that included good farm land, the white man found a way of getting them to take inferior land, and it has been the same with timber. There were good timber berths on some of the Indian lands, and the white man found ways and means of getting the Indians to give up that timber. So I say it will be a tremendous job to look through these old treaties and old deeds of gift to find out just what the Indians have had to put up with.
I rise to-day more particularly to give the committee a little encouragement. I know some people have said the Indian is no good, that you cannot make anything out of him. During the Easter recess I had an opportunity to go to the Six Nations Indian reserve just south of Brantford, and I would not have missed that trip for anything. There I found very highly civilized, well-educated, cultured Indians, and I want to say something about some of the things I saw. In the first place I believe the whole reserve would average up pretty well as a farming community with any community of white people. They have eleven day-schools on this reserve. All the teachers are Indians, most of whom were educated on the reserve and who then went on further

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
with their education. They have fourteen Indian teachers teaching the Indian children. I looked at their work and spoke to one of the teachers, and I believe the work those children were doing would compare favourably with the work done in any of the white schools. They have their own agricultural society. They have a very neat little town, Oshweken, on the outskirts of which they have their own agricultural grounds. Those grounds are neat, as everything else in connection with that reserve is neat. When you enter the agricultural grounds you go through a double arch gate, and inside to the right you find a recreation hall. I think these Indian teachers have done a wonderful work in preparing the young people of the reservation for citizenship. The recreation hall is large enough to permit the playing of basketball and softball. The young people meet twice a week and they can play these games. They are taught archery and many other things. They even have an orchestra of eighteen or twenty pieces, and also several small bands. They have a seed cleaning plant which is capable of cleaning all the seed used on the reservation.
I asked them how they were making out as far as higher education was concerned and they told me that in a number of the schools they teach first year high school but that quite a number have gone on to take higher education. I asked how many had entered the professions and they gave me a list. There is a Doctor T. J. Jamieson who is practising medicine at the present time in Detroit. Doctor F. A. Johnson is an eye specialist in Akron, Ohio. D. J. Smith, B.S.A., is in New Zealand. Doctor E. Jamieson is a science teacher in North Toronto collegiate. Doctor T. A. Miller is a homeopath specialist in tuberculosis. A lawyer named Norman Lickers is practising in Brantford. A very interesting person is Doctor Minnie S. Buerk. Doctor Buerk first graduated in Canada as a nurse. She went to the United States and married a doctor in Detroit. About a year and a half later her husband died, and she then went to the university there and took a course in medicine. She is now practising in Detroit. Another interesting person of whom I heard was a girl who had also graduated as a nurse in Canada. She went to the United States and was employed to take care of a sub-normal son of the Sears family

the Sears-Roebuck people. This boy could hardly speak and had little use of his hands. This girl taught the boy not only to speak, but also to read and write and how to use his hands. Eventually she married one of the members of the Sears family.

Three parsons graduated from these schools, one of them Reverend Jeno Porter, who broadcasts every Sunday from Brantford. I think it would be very interesting for any hon. member who happened to be in that vicinity to visit this reserve. It is an illuminating illustration of what can be done with the Indians. As I said before, some people have an idea that you cannot make anything out of an Indian. I admit that at times it may seem a big job, but there is no doubt that there are individuals on every reserve who have the capacity to learn, and they should be given every opportunity to get an education.
We have slipped up badly in the education of our Indians. Many of the reserves depend entirely upon residential schools. I have nothing against the residential school, because I know it is doing a lot of good work, but a large percentage of the children on some of the reserves do not go to school because there are no day schools. Last winter, speaking to a band of Indians, I told them that the Indians themselves must accept some of the responsibility of educating their people. I told them that they would have to do what the white people were doing, that is, have compulsory education so that their children would have to go to school.
I think we shall have to get the cooperation of the Indians before we can make much headway with their education. I suggest to the minister that when he is choosing men who are to be agents or teachers, he should not select them in a haphazard manner. They should be chosen for their special qualifications, and the main qualification should be an understanding of the Indian and an ability to get the Indian to cooperate with them.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I am entirely in favour of the terms and implications of this resolution, and I wish to compliment the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) upon having brought the matter up for discussion in the House of Commons. I believe a similar discussion was originated last year by a private member's resolution, and some hon. members were afraid that the question might be left in abeyance. We are glad indeed to see this demonstration of the alertness of the minister and his department.
I am glad that the resolution calls for the setting up of a committee of members of parliament rather than a royal commission. I am not against royal commissions as such; often they have done splendid work, but in dealing with a question of this kind, in which departments of government are directly

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
concerned and in connection with which there is no legal point involved, I believe the best procedure is to set up a committee composed of members of parliament.
If you read the names of the hon. members comprising the committee you will see that they come from every part of Canada. Many of them are familiar not only with their own local Indian problems but also with problems affecting Indians generally across the country. Again I should like to compliment the minister upon having taken action for the appointment of the committee. Royal commissions have done good work in the past, but if we are to reach practical conclusions I do not think there is any better way of doing so under our parliamentary system than to set up a committee of this kind.
I may be a little disappointed personally because I have not been named as a member of the committee, but even though I had been named it might have been impossible for me to attend its sessions, because I hope that the external affairs committee will soon begin to sit and I expect to be quite busy there; besides I have to attend other committees.
I happen to represent a section of the country which takes in the James Bay area in which there is a large Indian population. There are local problems to be faced, and there are problems national in character. I know that all of them will be dealt with by this committee in a proper and practical way.
The committee should not be satisfied with sitting in Ottawa only. Although it might take a lot of time, I think the committee should visit the different centres of Indian population from the Atlantic to the Pacific-and I am referring particularly to my own section. I hope the committee will find it possible to visit the Indian population at Moosonee, Moose Factory, Fort George and Fort Albany. I realize that the Indian Affairs branch has been giving a good deal of attention to these problems and spending considerable money, with fruitful results, but I think it would be worth while if the members of the committee could visit the Indians. It might cost a little more, but it would be money well spent.
I would not for a moment attempt to dictate or give direction to the chairman or members of the committee, but I do hope that my suggestion in this regard will be implemented. It would be a wonderful way to get to the root of the problem. I was greatly enlightened, although I had thought I knew something about the Indian problem, by the speeches of hon. members of the C.C.F. and Progressive Conservative parties on this subject 63260-92
in present and past sessions. The member for Comox-Alberni gave a most interesting account of the Indian people, describing their fine qualities and festivities and customs, which I am sure were a revelation not only to the members of parliament but to the people of Canada generally.
I hope that the committee will visit every section of our Indian population and will consider the Indian problem not only in itself but also as it is related to Canada as a whole. The committee will have a lot of work to do. I think it will be impossible for them to make a final report this year, but I am sure that the work they do will be well received not only by parliament but by the whole country. It will take much time and involve personal sacrifices. I do not mean that the members should pay their travelling expenses. For a number of years before I was Deputy Speaker of the house I was a member of the war expenditures committee, and when it was first mooted that the committee would travel I thought that the expenses should be borne by the individual members. But it did not take me very long to see that that would be unfair to members of parliament, and so I hope that the principle followed in that case will apply to this committee, because it will have to cover a good deal of territory. The members of the committee may have to go to the Yukon and the northwest territories. They may have to go to the habitats of the Eskimo. Certainly they will have to visit the northern section of my part of the country in order to study the actual conditions on the ground.
It is said that the Indians, generally speaking, do not mix with the white population. That does not hold true of my part of the country. I know many full-blooded Indians who do mix with the white population, and to their benefit. I know full-blooded -Indians who are succeeding in the professions, and I hope that the educational system for the Indians will make it possible for them to become scientific agriculturists, technicians and craftsmen of various kinds. Some of the Indians are excellent doctors, and others good dentists. It would not be doing justice to the Indians, with all their natural talents, to keep them on their reserves and expect them always to earn their living by hunting and trapping. Many of the younger men have gone into the outside world, particularly those who have enlisted or attended our public and high schools. They are proud of the calling of their forefathers, but their horizons have widened and many of them have become enterprising co-citizens of the white popula-



Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
tion in our section of the country. I am convinced, however, that contact with the white man has not- often been of benefit to the Indians. It has disturbed, in many, their way of living, and means must be found of maintaining the integrity of the Indians' own habitat.
The Ontario government about eight years ago set aside a large section of territory south of James bay, embracing thousands of square miles where the timber is not very heavy, to develop beaver, otter and mink. I have been told that ten or twelve years from now there will be sufficient of that wild game in that territory to give a living to at least ten thousand Indians, and some of the white population too. A scheme of that kind should be enlarged, and I hope the committee will find it possible to recommend the setting aside of thousands of square miles which should be left entirely to the Indians where they can make a living by hunting and trapping. To that they are entitled, and they should be assisted and encouraged by a scheme of that sort. The time has arrived when the demarcation line should be withdrawn between federal and provincial activities and when schemes such as I have mentioned should be instituted in many sections of northern Canada. I am an optimist by nature. I implicitly believe in our wonderful country and its future. As we have heard many times on the floor of the house, -and read in the press, it is a land with wide open spaces, no doubt designed by Providence to remain as such for all time to come. Nevertheless there are ways of raising the standards of the Indians and providing them with fruitful employment, and one industry to which they are peculiarly adapted is fur raising. The furs we produce in the northern section of Canada command a premium in the world market. Any fur coming from my section of the country, from around James bay or Hudson bay, whether it be white fox, otter, beaver or mink, commands a higher price than furs from any other part of the world except northern Russia. A scheme such as the Ontario government has started for the raising of these fur-bearing animals will not only be helpful to the Indians in providing them with employment and a living, but in time to come will be of benefit to the provincial and federal treasuries as well. The scheme will not run into millions of dollars but into hundreds of thousands, and in a few years will be self-sustaining. I should like to see the committee recommend the setting aside and helping the development of areas on the shores of Hudson bay and James 
bay and across northern Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba such as the Ontario government has started.
There is one other thing I should like to mention. On account of the great distances, the Indians often are deprived of hospital accommodation for days and weeks, and I was therefore glad to see the other day that an air line was to be established from Moosonee to Cochrane, Timmins and Haileybury. That will help -to relieve the situation, because these poor Indians follow their trap lines at the risk of life and limb and have to face all the hazards of climate. Tuberculosis is rampant among them, and sanitary conditions are not always what they should be. Often a sore will develop into cancer or some other disease, and so there must be rapid transit to bring those who need it out to civilization for prompt medical attention.
I do not know whether my information is correct, but I have been told that it is the intention of the government to build a large hospital in the James bay section. I believe it was in the year 1928 that I had the good fortune to see an Indian hospital built next to the municipal hospital in Cochrane. It gave fine service to the Indian population. They came to it from the east and west on the transcontinental line, and also from the north and south of our section; but after a number of years the Indian department decided, I believe seven years ago, to close that institution and turn it over to our own hospital. The service was maintained in the same way except that the local hospital was paid so much per patient. But that has not given the necessary service to the Indians. I do not know how correct my information is, but I understand that the department intends to build a fairly large hospital at Moosonee or Moose .Factory. I have no right to dictate to the department, but speaking as one who knows the local and regional situation I fervently hope it will be found possible for the department to build that-hospital in Cochrane. I am not speaking from the point of' view of home politics. The question is away above any political considerations, and I commend the hon. members who have spoken for avoiding political criticisms. But my advice is based on several reasons. First, a large section of our Indian population starts from the shores of the Hudson bay and spreads as far as Amos on the Transcontinental. We have a large section in Matagami that spend most of their summer there, and also at Algoma and west to the town of Hearst on the Canadian National. I know the question comes to mind, what

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
will become of the Indians of the Hudson bay and James bay sections? It may be found necessary in order to give the best service to that area to have an air service from the Moose bay section and Fort George to that hospital in Cochrane.
I am leaving these thoughts for thorough study and consideration by the minister and officials of his department. They have always been receptive of any practical suggestions I have placed before them, and I know that the permanent heads of this department and the ministers themselves have always wanted to play fair with this class of our population.
While Canada may not have done for the Indians all that we could have wished her to do, she has done better than most other countries. At least we consider them as human beings; the policy has not been one of extermination, but of preservation, of advancement, and of trying to do the best we could with them.
There are two matters referred to in the motion which I should like briefly to mention. First, section 5, eligibility of Indians to vote at dominion elections. Personally I believe that the vote should be accorded to our Indian population. If it were necessary that any citizens in order to vote should have an intelligence test, I am convinced that ninety-five if not ninety-nine per cent of our Indian population could pass that test. For our Indians to hew a living out of the northern sections of our country in districts like the Hudson bay and James bay, to face the climatic conditions involved in fur trapping, and successfully carry on that pursuit, requires much enterprise, initiative, courage and intelligence. The election act as it stands is a baffling piece of legislation. It is perfectly right, no doubt, that the franchise should be extended to Indians who enlisted in world wars I and II, and to their families, but you would be surprised at the reaction of the average Indian when he sees that one of his relatives has the right to vote but that he is denied the vote because, although he wished to do so, for some reason he was unable to enlist. I hope this anomaly will be rectified, because I do not believe in making distinctions between various classes of people. If you allow one section to vote and debar another section, you invite and are bound to have criticisms which are entirely warranted.
I would refer also to paragraph 6, the encroachment of white persons on Indian reserves, I hope members of the committee will study this question thoroughly. No doubt our civilization and the work of our missionaries have brought much blessing to the Indian 63260-92i
population, but at times there is also resentment in the hearts of many Indians at the hardships which have been caused them by a few so-called white people-white in name only, not in respect of their behaviour and conduct to. the Indian people. The law could be so defined that the Indians Shall have exclusive rights in most parts of their own territory, and they shall be protected from any depredation or violation, of the things they cherish. After all, they have maintained their own civilization, their own way of living, and all of us who have any acquaintance with them know how sincere and honest they are. Anyone who has hunted in my own section will have seen along the trails some caches containing meat, and Indian after Indian will tell you that never under any circumstances, unless threatened with starvation, has a single pound of that meat been stolen by the Indians themselves. They would rather suffer than take food which has been placed there for the use of people in need of it. They have some wonderful qualities; they have also resentment in their hearts at the depredations and the temptations which they have suffered at the 'hands of people who are bent upon exploiting them. At this point, as one who knows something of the activities of the Hudson's Bay company and Revillon Freres, may I say that if you go to the Hudson bay-where Revillon Freres are not located at this time-you will see people at the head of those posts working with the Indians, playing the game with them in every way. But sometimes outsiders disturb the peace of mind of the Indians and rob them of the fruits of their activities.
I wish again to compliment the minister upon having presented this motion. I know that splendid and lasting results will be accomplished. We do not need to be impatient. It is a complex question, and it shows the fine spirit of our parliament that, in a matter in which, perhaps, very few votes are involved, there is not one of us but who, for reasons of humanitarianism, wants to relieve these people of sickness and suffering, to remedy the lack of hospitalization and provide proper education and a place in our national life. When it comes to craftsmanship and education-, the department has done wonderful work. Modern methods of trapping, fishing and knitting are taught to our Indians. So the situation at the present time is not bad, but, in the words of the minister, it can be improved. In trying to do this through the work of the committee, pursuant to the directive given by the minister himself, I am positive that our country, which can be proud

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
to some extent of its past record in dealing with the Indian population, will have even more reason for pride when the recommendations of the committee now being formed have been implemented.


John Horne Blackmore: May I congratulate the minister at the outset upon bringing in this motion, and may I also congratulate him on being the first minister for a good many years who has taken enough interest in this particular branch of his department to desire a thorough housecleaning. However good may be the record of the Indian department-and I think all must concede that it has many good qualities-there certainly must be room for improvement. The minister has adopted one of the means of determining what might be that room for improvement and what measures might appropriately be undertaken to effect the necessary changes. Out in my territory the people feel that there should have been a royal commission instead of a parliamentary committee, and a good many reasons have been advanced for this. The fine programme which- the member for Cochrane (Mr. Bra-dette) outlined for this committee's activities would indicate that probably the committee will be called upon to do such an excellent, such a thorough job as might leave no real demand for a commission. We might be able to do all the work that a commission could do. But those in my territory who advocate a commission point to the fact that the members of a committee of parliament, no matter how wisely that committee may be chosen, will hardly have representatives of the Indians themselves on the personnel of the organization. They feel that certainly there should have been Indian organizations represented, and if we had had a royal commission it would have been a simple matter to include among the personnel several outstanding chiefs and leaders across the country. They point out that it will be exceedingly difficult for a House of Commons committee to do the necessary travelling.
I was almost alarmed at the picture which the member for Cochrane painted. I am wondering how we are going to take care of all the work that requires to be done here and at the same time do the travelling which that member has outlined for us. However, I am certainly in favour of doing everything possible to ensure a thorough job on this question.
I believe we should see what the different tribes do, the conditions under which they live. My own limited experience with Indians has shown me that the conditions under which they live vary widely from tribe to tribe.

Consequently it looks to me as if, unless we see a good many of them in their living conditions, it will be difficult for us to be realistic in any decision we arrive at.
It is not going to be possible for us to hear all the witnesses we ought to hear unless we do a good deal of travelling. This would argue the advisability of having a royal commission rather than a parliamentary committee. The expenses would probably have been less if we had had a royal commission. I am not prepared at the moment to pronounce on that whole question. The thoroughness with which we go into the task will require, I believe, more than a parliamentary committee will be able to rise to.
I do not want to be dubious about the matter, but this has given us one of the reasons why there should have been a royal commission. Everyone suspects a parliamentary committee of having a certain amount of party bias, no matter how well the committee may do its work-at any rate everyone does outside parliament. If we had a royal commission, however, it would be possible to remove all suspicion of anything like party bias in dealing with the question.
We must grant, I believe, that there is a good deal of room for improvement. The Indians in my constituency, in the Blood Indian reserve, read the fine remarks made with reference to Indians being wards of the nation, and they laugh a mirthless laugh. They fail to see how the treatment that has been accorded them can in any way justify the expression "wards of the nation". They feel that they have had to do things in the hard way, and quite often it has been a case "root hog, or die", and they felt that they were close to dying.
There are several sections of the Indian act which the people in my area feel should be improved. They are of the opinion that section 18 should be amended. I will not go into details to show in what respect it should be amended, but the idea is that there is too njuch dictatorial power exercised in the enforcement of that section. The Indians believe that the chiefs and counsellors ought to have adequate pay. Not very long ago several chiefs were in my home from the Blood Indian reserve and were pointing out to me what an expensive business it was being a chief or a counsellor, how far they had to travel on the reserve to hear the problems they were called upon to decide. One of them said to me, "You member of parliament and it cost you a lot of money to travel; I chief and I get no money but I have to travel too." That I felt was a sound observation.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you say?


John Horne Blackmore: I said nothing; that seemed to me to be the wisest course. However, I decided that the Indians had a good case. I believe we should make provision for reimbursing these gentlemen for out-ofpocket expenses and any losses they incur as a result of having to neglect their own work to discharge the duties in connection with the position they hold.
The question of military service is one which is exercising the Indians, and a good many of the white people as well. Much attention must be given that question, I should not like to make a pronouncement at the moment as to whether I would favour complete freedom from military service. I submit however that the problem should be carefully studied.
Treaty rights which were granted to the Indians have been in many cases disregarded, as far as I can see. As I recall it, the Indians in my constituency signed in 1877 a treaty known as treaty No. 7. In that treaty there are a good many stipulations which have not been observed. That is not as it should-be. What the reasons are I do not know, but I believe we ought to find out and reaffirm the treaty rights of the Indians. When the Blood Indians and those working with them signed that treaty they believed the white man meant what he said. If the white man did not mean what he said, then we had better see to it that we say it again and mean it.	_
The education of the Indians has occupied a good deal of my attention throughout the last twenty years. I have felt that there was much to be desired on the reservation in my constituency. In the first place-and I am speaking in a purely impersonal way-I find it difficult to see how we can guarantee the Indians an education when we are consigning every Indian on the reserve to become either a Roman Catholic or an Anglican in order to go to school. There are two residential schools, one Roman Catholic and the other Anglican. I have no fault to find with either of these churches, but to say that every Indian should have to become a member of one or the other in order to get an education is to say something which seems reckless and illogical in a country such as Canada. Nevertheless that is the situation. All the education which the Indians obtain in my constituency has been obtained in one or the other of these residential schools, which are definitely religious schools. This is a matter which ought to be considered with great care.
Among our treaty obligations with the Indians was the guarantee that we would educate the Indian, and we are falling far short of giving the Indians on the Blood
Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
Indian reserve what we would call an adequate education. That matter must be probed and a proper remedy prescribed. In my judgment, there should be modern every-day schools.
In my constituency the Blood Indian reservation is a very long stretch of land of many miles. The Indians have to travel a considerable distance. It would not be so bad if they had automobiles, but if they have to travel by team all the way from the remote reaches of the reservation with their children up to the schools and come up occasionally to see _ the children, they are put to exceedingly great inconvenience. It ought to be possible for us to establish day schools on reservations similar to the rural schools which we gave to our white people scattered over the prairies. Therefore it should not be necessary for the Indians to send their children long distances to residential schools for many months at a time.
It is a well-understood principle by all people who give thought to educational matters that education after all is not only just a matter for'the schools to take care of. There are at least three elements involved in education. One of these is the school; certainly another ought to be the home, and the third ought to be the church. Because of the way the children are being educated on the Blood Indian reservation, the home has no chance at all. In fact for over half of the time the children are entirely separated from their parents. Frequently at the end of their education they come back to find the parents do not know them and they do not know the parents, so widely separated-have they become from what they were when they left their homes. This matter ought to be taken care of. So far as I can see the only way to take care of it is to establish day schools at convenient places in the reservations.
Indian parents have a right to the company of their children just as much as white parents have a right to the company of theirs. They have a perfect right to influence their children. When the Indians signed a treaty with us they did not sign away their rights to bring up their children as Indians. They have a perfect right to bring up their children as Indians if they wish to do so.
There is another matter that is rather serious. On the reservation in my constituency many of the parents need the assistance of their boys and girls when they are making hay and doing other work. They need the help of their boys and girls just as much as the white people do; yet the boys are away until they are fifteen or sixteen years of age, and the parents have to get along without

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
them. That is a matter which ought to be looked into. It is another problem which can be solved only by the use of the everyday school.
It is suggested by some-I am not prepared to suggest it specifically for the Blood Indian reservation because I am not well enough informed on the matter-that there ought to be not only a day school but a semi-residential school here and there on the reservation. It is suggested that it ought to be possible for parents to send their children to residen-' tial schools where they can stay five nights a week and come home for the week-end. Such an arrangement would overcome many of the disadvantages which now obtain by reason of having all the children go to a complete residential school. This is a matter which ought to be given careful consideration by the committee, and upon which recommendations ought to be made.
It is advocated by some that there should be three kinds of schools on reservations where conditions are favourable. There should be a residential school, a semi-residential school here and there where conditions warrant it, and a day school in other places where conditions warrant it.
There is another matter which is receiving considerable attention in some parts of the west. Some Indians desire to send their children to schools which are outside the reservation. In other words, Indians who are better off, more ambitious and progressive desire to send their children to a school in a white community. They find that the children make more progress in those schools, but the cost involved in sending a child to a school outside a reservation is often so great as to render it completely prohibitive, regardless of how desirous the parent may be of giving his children that educational advantage. It is suggested by some that the government ought to be prepared, where children have the opportunity and desire to go to a school in a white community, to pay the tuition and an allowance which would enable the child to have such advantages as adequate laundry service, and so on, which are necessary to enable him to live in that kind of community without being self-conscious, so that he may have the chance to develop. This is a matter which ought to have serious consideration if we are desirous of having the Indians become one with us, as I am sure we are; if we wish them to assimilate with us in due time. I can think of no more direct method of accomplishing that objective than allowing the boys and girls to go from the reservations into the schools of white

children, so that they can grow up in that environment, thereby^ becoming accustomed to the ways of the whites, and go home to their tepees at night. In this way they would be put in a position to compete and give to the country the kind of service of v hich they are capable.
I could say a great deal more on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that if I use up any more time I shall probably be depriving other hon. members of the opportunity to give an expression of their feelings in this regard. After all, it is a matter which affects every one of us; it is not a party matter; it is an national matter, a matter of great concern. I shall therefore content myself by saying that I heartily approve this resolution, if it is impossible to have a royal commission. I really believe that it would be better to have a royal commission. Perhaps the establishment of a committee to go into this problem will be the first step leading to the appointment of a royal commission, because the members of this committee, after wrestling with the problem for a year, may become convinced that a royal commission is the only solution and may so recommend. However, let me repeat that since it is impossible to have a royal commission at the present time I heartily approve the appointment of this committee and again wish to congratulate the minister on having introduced the resolution.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: 
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I welcome the introduction of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen). Some of the Indians have been asking for a royal commission, but if this committee is given sufficient power to
bring before it an adequate representation of Indians, in order to present their grievances, perhaps it will serve the purpose.
Speaking for the Indians of my constituency I would say there are many things that need to be cleaned up. We have young Indians from the Fisher river and Pequis reserves lying in gaol for trapping muskrats. These young Indians still feel they are within their rights, and they do not believe they have done anything wrong. We may be able to straighten out such matters in such a committee. There is also the question of the land in St. Peter's reserve which was leased or sold to the provincial government; that is the Netley marsh. If this land was surrendered, as the government maintains, why do the Indians still claim they never agreed to the sale? That is another matter than can be straightened up in this committee.
The young Indians of the constituency of Selkirk who fought overseas and are now coming back have new ideas. They have seen how other people live. They have been trained in the army, and they question such practices as taking water from a river into which, a little further upstream, the sewage of a town is dumped. These boys have learned that sanitation, hygiene and nutrition are essential to decent living. Tuberculosis is increasing among the Indians. Last year the department granted more money than ever before, but I am quite sure a great deal more will have to be spent before this disease is brought under control. There is the question of old age pensions for Indians; that can be discussed in this committee. There is the matter of the conditions in which some of these old Indians are living in the northern part of my constituency; we can bring that before this committee when the time comes.
There will be educational problems which require to be straightened out. I have in mind as one example the fact that when an Indian becomes enfranchised his children immediately have to stop going to the Indian school, though there may not be a school operated by the provincial government within ten or twenty miles. I am sure the federal Indian department and the provincial department of education could do a good job by cooperating to see that 'these Indians have an opportunity to obtain an education.
Again I welcome the appointment of this committee, which will afford these Indian bands, Indian organizations and people interested in the welfare of the Indians an opportunity to present their views, comments and recommendations to members of the Senate and House of Commons in an endeavour to correct any wrongs that may exist and in gen-

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
eral to legislate for the improvement of the welfare of our Indians. I do not intend to say any more at this time, since I understand the minister would prefer to have any complaints brought before the committee. I am happy to be on it and am looking forward to the opportunity in the near future of bringing to the attention of the committee the representations of the various Indian bands in the constituency of Selkirk.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: I should like to make two or three brief observations on this lengthy resolution. In the first place I do not see that any good purpose will be served by a lengthy debate, such as seems to be developing at the present time. What is wanted is to get the resolution passed and the committee at work. The Indians themselves are sick and tired, I know from speaking to a large number of them, of people talking over their problems, making observations about them, and getting nothing done. As far as I can see, we are just wasting the time of the house in debating this matter at the present time. Let us pass the resolution and get something done.
As far as I have been able to determine, the majority of the Indians, and certainly a very large number of organizations which are friendly to the Indians and are supporting them, have been pressing for the appointment of a royal commission. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has gone at some length into the matter of a royal commission and some of the advantages which might accrue from it. Personally I think that would be a better way to handle this investigation into Indian affairs, if for no other reason than I think it would have been more satisfactory to the Indians and those friendly to the Indians than a parliamentary committee of this kind. However, since the government have decided on a parliamentary committee I believe they can be assured that we shall all give full cooperation, as I am sure will be the case with the various organizations interested in the welfare of our Indians.
The minister has indicated that full opportunity will be given the Indians to make representations to this committee, and I trust he used the word "full" in its widest meaning.
I hope there will be no tendency to put pressure on Indians from any reservation to prevent them from bringing forward their problems and making what complaints they have to make. That was one of the reasons why a lot of them wanted a royal commission appointed. They felt that with a parliamentary committee they would have less, chance to be heard and less chance to put forward their 
own points of view. I trust that we shall now go ahead and pass the resolution instead of wasting any more time in talk.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) for bringing forward this resolution. The Indians in my district did not want a royal commission; they wanted the problem dealt with in this manner. They felt that a royal commission would be too cold-blooded an affair; they wanted some body appointed, something in the way of a round-table conference, before which they could place their problems; they wanted to sit down with the members of parliament who make the laws.
I met the brotherhood which represents the Indians on the northwest coast of British Columbia; I also made a visit to the Indian village of Old Massett on the Queen Charlotte islands in order to find out what grievances they had, and they had many. The education of the Canadian Indian in years gone by has not been very good and many new requirements have to be provided for. The whole thing is a disheartening mess. I found in the school at Old Massett that the grade seven pupils were using grade six books while the grade five pupils were using grade four books. They simply did not have proper textbooks for the children. The Indian agent has been told of this but no action has been taken. There are no lights in the school and as hon. members know, in that latitude the days are rather short in the winter time. There is no library; there are no reference books, and no help has been received from the agent in connection with these deficiencies.
The Indians want to know who inspects the school. Apparently there is no proper inspection. The Indians tell me that the boarding schools are under the domination or control of the various religious denominations. They would like to have schools like we have, that is, government controlled education. It is granted that the people running these schools have the highest motives, but too many of them are picked for their religious qualifications rather than for their ability to teach, under modern conditions especially.
The teacher in the school at Old Massett is receiving $95 a month plus the cost of living bonus. I am told that the salaries paid in some of the residential schools are as low as $60 a month. When we realize the conditions a schoolteacher in an Indian village is up against we must know that we cannot get the right class of teacher to teach in an Indian village unless higher salaries are paid. It would pay this country to pay these teachers

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
more than, is normally paid to the ordinary day schoolteacher. These teachers have more difficult problems to meet and they must be more understanding. If proper salaries were paid a better class of teacher could be induced to go on the Indian reservations and make the teaching of these people their life work.	.
The inspector of the department states that day schools are more effective than residential schools. Apparently the residential schools break up the school day into so many hours of schooling and so many hours of actual work. Under modern conditions such a procedure is outlawed. These people will have to .adapt themselves to present-day technology development at relatively a much faster rate than we had to.
I have here a description of the sanitary conditions in the village of Kitketla. These people state that they have no drinking water, that some people must depend upon rain water. Others dig holes in the ground but they cannot go very deep because of the bedrock. Hon. members know the kind of water you get when you can go down only two or three feet. Is it any wonder that there is so much sickness among the Indians? They tell me that there is a lake up on the hill and that all the government would have to do is to put in a pipe to provide water for the village. The Indian agent promised to have this done this summer, but nothing has happened. Previous Indian agents made no attempt to solve this problem.
The condition of the school is, to put it mildly, a disgrace. It is contended that the school is a source of tuberculosis. There are forty-eight families there and four babies died in three months. The size of the school is thirty-four by twenty-two feet; it has a seating capacity of thirty-six, and seventy pupils are registered. The older ones go in the morning and the younger ones in the afternoon. Some of the children do not want to go to school because the floor is full of holes through which the rats can crawl. This is the condition that these people have to face.
The Indians in British Columbia do not
come under treaty rights. A total of $20,000,000 has been spent on Indians during the past fifty years and this amounts to $4.10 per capita per annum for the Indians in that province. They would like to see some sort of credit set-up arranged so that they could buy their own fishing gear and boats and not be under the control of the canning companies. This would give them a degree of independence which they have not had in years gone by.
Indian Affairs branch will have to take some responsibility for housing conditions in the canneries. No matter what is done on the reservation, when these people go to the canneries the conditions under which they must live are definitely bad for their health. The provincial authorities are not doing a great deal about the matter. The housing situation generally in most villages is bad and I do not think enough money has been spent in providing proper facilities.
I could give more details of the cases that have been laid before me, but now that this committee is to be set up they can be presented by the Indians themselves. I hope that the Indians and organizations such as the brotherhood will have ample opportunities to present their cases and that officialdom from the Indian Affairs branch will not take up too much time. I trust that the Indians will be able to speak their mind about what they want in the way of education and that representatives of the various churches will not be allowed to take up too much of the time of the committee. I know the Indians can make it very plain what they want if they are given the opportunity.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, until the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) spoke I had not intended to speak on this motion. The hon. member for Lethbridge suggested that the Indians should be exempted from military service. That would be an insult to the Indians in my riding. Practically every male Indian in my riding enlisted for overseas service, and many of them never came back.


Mr. LOW:: Did the hon. member say that the hon. member for Lethbridge had said that the Indians should be exempted from military service?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


Solon Earl Low: I think I should correct the hon. member. The hon. member for Lethbridge stated distinctly that the committee should decide whether or not the Indians should be exempted.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I stand corrected. But I do not think the committee should deal with the matter at all. It should be left as is. Let the Indians decide for themselves. They will enlist without any persuasion from any government, as they did in my riding.
The enfranchised Indians should, I believe, have a good deal of consideration from this committee because it is the enfranchised Indians who often find themselves at the parting of the ways, unable to look after themselves after a few years awav from their

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee

tribe. In many cases they cannot even get schooling; they cannot get hospitalization, and township or county often will not give them hospitalization. I know of one Indian boy who developed tuberculosis of the leg, and the hospital and doctors' bills-mostly the hospital-ran to over $3,000. Eventually the county had to pay it. But I believe that is the responsibility of the government. These people are not paying any taxes; they never did pay any tax, and I doubt that they ever will, as they are on government land. These enfranchised Indians should be looked after.
I notice that of late years the Indian Affairs branch has been selling islands and lake shores. This has resulted in closing off many Indians who act as guides for tourists from going ashore in order to cook the noonday meals for those they guide. Upon all lakes and streams where there are Indian lands, proper provision should be made for the Indians for this purpose.
The hon. member who spoke before me mentioned the pay of teachers in the Indian schools. Pay is essential, of course, but the most important thing for the teacher in an Indian school is to have an understanding of the Indian. The teacher must first learn to know the Indians and how to win their confidence. Once they have won the confidence of the Indians they can teach them, but they cannot teach them before having that. I have found that the Indian boys and girls, if given proper teaching, will do as well as if not better than the white boys and girls, as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) has said. They make wonderful pupils and wonderful citizens of Canada if given half a chance.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in participating in this debate is to emphasize the urgency of giving the utmost consideration to the question of nontreaty Indians. During the past few years we have had a bitter experience in our part of the country in connection with two bands of Indians. One of them up until recently was a non-treaty band and the other is still a non-treaty band.
Among these non-treaty Indians we find a roving group of people not limited to any specific area but moving seasonally to engage in various types .of work, perhaps farm work during the harvest and trapping during the winter. The two bands that I am particularly concerned with, the Crees and the Ohippewas of the Rocky Mountain House and White Court districts pose a tremendous problem because of the incidence of disease among them, venereal disease and tuberculosis

particularly. During certain times of the year these Indians come out from the areas they inhabit during the winter and engage in harvest operations among the whites. I contend that this is a menace to the white people of those areas. About two years ago the district health nurse at Rocky Mountain House advised me that if the public were aware of the infant mortality rate among those Indians they would be appalled. A certain doctor responsible for checking these Indians for military service stated that he could not O.K. one of them for military service because of the incidence of both venereal disease and tuberculosis.
I wish to emphasize that during recent times one tribe has agreed to accept treaty. I understand there is an agreement whereby Indians cannot be forced to accept treaty and to establish themselves upon a reservation, but in my opinion where the prevalence of disease among them is such as to jeopardize the general health of all the people, whites and others, in that area, drastic action Aould be taken.
There are no educational facilities for the Indians of the non-treaty bands. There are no hospital facilities at all for them, and as I indicated earlier, the increase in disease among them is staggering.
I could not speak on this subject without paying public tribute to one who has done a tremendous work among these two bands of Indians and who has received very little if any public acclaim for his services. I have in mind one Hem-y Stelfox, the first public game warden in the province of Alberta, one who has given generously of his means and his time on behalf of these Indians and has been refused on more than one occasion repayment of the few paltry dollars he has paid out of his own pocket in order to meet some emergency such as illness among these Indians. Mr. Stelfox, I understand, was upon one occasion offered a position as Indian agent, but the wage offered was much less than he paid to his most poorly paid hired man. To me it seemed an insult. But I wish to emphasize that he is not looking for a position or compensation. I believe that he is deserving of the highest tribute I am capable of paying for the magnificent work that he has done among these Indians. But the work is becoming beyond what any one man can do, and the government must step in and take definite action to clear up a bad situation which has developed, I trust, therefore, that the committee will not overlook the position of the non-treaty Indians and that as a result of committee deliberations their problems will be removed.

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I understood from the minister last night that he was hopeful there would be little debate on this resolution and therefore I Shall be brief. We are pleased to see that the government are doing something about the Indians, if it is only the setting up of a committee. About a month ago I placed on the order paper a resolution proposing :
That, in the opinion of this house, the government consider the advisability of setting up a royal commission, which should include Indian representation, to study the whole matter of the treatment of Indians in Canada; the relation of the present Indian Act to its ability to fulfil the treaties signed by these Indians, and to recommend to parliament those changes necessary in the administration of Indian affairs and the Indian Act which will make it possible to properly fulfil the treaty obligations, and to properly provide for the future well-being of the Indians of Canada.
The government, however, has already seen fit to set up this committee, and we support this part of the resolution. I believe that if the committee gets out in the field, discovers the actual conditions, and really does the work required of it, it will have on it hands a job much larger than may be anticipated at this present time. I hope that one of its recommendations will be that such a committee shall become more or less permanent. My reason for this suggestion lies in the very nature of the problem, the fact that we have in this country about 130,000 Indians who, living on reserves or off them, have no way +o air their grievances, no official voice by v' :eh to express approval or disapproval of what is being done, no way of protesting against undesirable conditions. We as Canadian people have a responsibility here to see that these people are properly treated. I am of opinion that the conditions which have been allowed to develop among the Indians with regard to their health, economic situation and training facilities are nothing less than a monument of disgrace to those who have been in power in Canada and have allowed human beings to suffer the conditions which exist among a very large majority of our Indian people.
What the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) has said on this matter is quite true. When the minister is closing the debate he might give us a statement as to what the infant mortality rate is among the Indians; it is reported to be over SO per cent in some areas. We are pleased that this matter of public health improvement has been regarded so seriously that the government has decided to hand the subject over to another department, the Department of National Health and Welfare. I believe that surveys in the 63260-931
northern area and reports have already been made, and I would ask that the report of the committee of medical men who investigated conditions in northern parts of Canada should be made available to this committee, so that we may know something of the magnitude of the problem facing us, and be able to take proper steps to provide adequate medical services to the Indians.
Those young Indians who volunteered to serve in the Canadian army and served abroad have learned a good many things, and what has struck them most forcibly is the method of controlling sanitary conditions and the scientific approach to nutritional problems, matters of which the Indians in general are in complete ignorance. The economic conditions of these people are simply deplorable. They cannot live nobly and well, if they have not the means of proper living; and my experience in visiting them, hearing reports, attending their attempts at holding conventions of one kind and another, both provincial and federal, convinces me that the economic condition constitutes a tremendous and immediate problem. What first drew my attention to this matter was that in my own constituency, although agriculture is supposed to pay pretty well these days, according to a report from one reserve where there are forty-six families, only ten of them are actively engaged in agriculture, that is in raising grain or cattle or both; the other thirty-six have no means of earning a livelihood other than going out to work for the white men in the neighbouring areas, or cutting wood and hauling it to town; and if their ponies are able to haul a fairly large load they may get two or three dollars for it, but in many cases they may get less. It is time we took these matters into account. I hope a careful study will be made as to the basis on which these people can be made self-supporting with an adequate standard of living.
The Indian himself is a good man. There is a lot of inherent goodness among Indians. The Indian creed is "Love and help thy brother", which I think will be admitted to be a fairly high code of ethics, and he lives out his belief. Indians help one another. Moreover, the Indian is a conserver of natural resources. If there are a number of muskrats or beaver, or a herd of reinder, or whatever the Indian makes his livelihood from, in any area, he realizes that enough should be left each year in order to propagate those animals or provide that fur or that food, and he always leaves a sufficient number there. In this respect the Indian is more scientific than the white man, with all his cunning. Too often the white trapper will move in on
Indian Affairs-Joint Committee

Indian trapping grounds and take the whole cache, clean out the whole area, so that in many cases the Indians have to move away or remain without the means of livelihood. One of the best things the Indian Affairs branch has done has been to carry out its programme of fur farming, and I hope that this committee in its recommendations will advocate the continuation and expansion of that programme.
The Indian is suspicious of white men. I think this is largely because he has been fooled so often, and because fur trading companies operating in the north robbed the Indians of their livelihood. They took their furs and paid the Indians practically nothing for them. They are the people to whom the Indians must go for provisions, for food, for ammunition, for most of their supplies. The exploitation which we used to read about as having occurred in the early days in Canada is still being carried on in the northern areas of this country as far as the Indian is concerned.
Treaty rights is one of the matters for consideration by this committee. I am pleased to notice that, because although it is a difficult and involved question it is also an important one. You will find that the Indians still have copies of old treaties made between themselves and early French governors who came to this countiy long before Canada became part of the British empire. You will find treaties made with representatives of the British people who conquered Canada, and between representatives of Great Britain and Indians who fought for the English at the time of the American war of independence and came to Canada to the Six Nations reserve. You will find treaties made with governors throughout Ontario and further west. It will be difficult to see to it that the Indian Act and the administration of the act fulfil all the obligations made under the various treaties. In the west, treaties were made somewhat later, after the northwest rebellion. Promises were made by the representatives of the queen. The Indians, in reading over those treaties, find that they have been broken, that, for example, it was carefully and deliberately provided that day schools should be established on each reserve, but that no such day schools have been provided. Other understandings in connection with the treaties were arrived at in conversations between Indians and officials of the government. For example, the Indians say they made it clear that they did not want their children to be taken outside Canada and forced to fight the battles of the white man

outside the country. Officials of the government at that time said, "No; we want you to live at peace among yourselves and with your white brothers and you will not be called upon to fight the wars of the queen outside Canada." But the present government instituted conscription and conscripted Indians off the reserves right in the province of Saskatchewan. These Indians had not volunteered; they had been promised these rights by treaty, and therefore they said, "You are breaking your treaty with us". What could they do? Could they go and complain to the Indian agent? Well, the agent would write to the department and ask for a directive and he would be told in reply that he should encourage the Indians to join.
When you break your word with an Indian he remembers it and it is no wonder the Indians are suspicious of their white brothers. Very often portions of reserves set aside for Indians have been sold to municipalities or to settlers and the Indian on the reserve wonders what has happened to the money he was supposed to get. He has no accounting. He has no way of saying, "You sold this land for so much money; where is that money?" He says, "By what right did you sell it? You set aside this land for us; you did so by treaty, and now you sell some of it." Well, they are told that they agreed to this; but who agreed to it? There is no record of anyone agreeing to it. The Indians understand that money was set aside in trust for them, but there is no accounting of the trust fund and they want an accounting. They want to know where the money is; they want to know something about the interest. What was done with it? The answer is, "It was used to pay you so much a year in treaty money; then there is the maintenance of the aged and the sick, and we have done many other things for you."
In the days when there was i)o crop in western Canada the Indians did not get relief from the municipalities. Quite often they had to pay for their own relief out of their trust fund and they lived at a terrifically low standard, as they do now. When there are only ten. families on a small reserve and the only means of livelihood is farming, the living conditions of these people are such that they cannot be healthy. They cannot assimilate education; they cannot improve their conditions, and they are powerless to speak. They have no means of redress.
The fight of the Indian to-day is a fight against ignorance, against poverty, against fear; and it will be a fight for democracy.
I am sorry that this committee will not have some group representing the Indians. I am sorry that it will not have some means

Inaian Affairs-Joint Committee
of such representation, somebody who can sit in on the deliberations, or persons chosen from selected groups in various parts of Canada.
I should like to see an Indian from the Mic-macs of the maritimes. I should like to see one from the Iroquois reserve and one from the Caughnawaga. I should like to see on the committee representatives who can listen to the deliberations, and I would recommend to the government that a place be made on the committee for representative groups of Indians from across Canada.


Mr. REID:: It might not be a peaceable committee.


George Hugh Castleden: A good thing every now and then is a good fight. I believe we would avoid a good many mistakes.


Thomas Reid: I am a peaceable man; I agree with you.


George Hugh Castleden: I appreciate the hon. gentleman's qualities. If this suggestion were adopted, then for the first time in the history of the country, in the making of important legislation, the Indians would at least have a voice. They would have representatives chosen by the people themselves and that would help to prevent mistakes, because . I do not believe that we understand entirely the position of the Indians. There are good men on the Indian reserves, man of ability, with qualities of leadership.
I should like to see representation from Manitoba. There was a young Indian from Manitoba on the committee who interviewed the minister recently and I had the honour of listening to him. He had volunteered from that province. He could not pass the medical examination to start with, but after medical treatment, special training and settingup exercises, he turned out to be a man of fine physique, a man of courage, and he won the Military Medal. He belonged to the paratroopers and went behind the enemy's lines in Sicily and Italy. He could tell the committee a few things.
I should like to see representation from Saskatchewan, from the Sioux, the Cree, the Blackfeet and the Stony Indians. They could tell us something about their treatment. We also need representation from British Columbia, where I understand no treaties at all were made with the Indians. They have no means of making themselves heard. They cannot say, "Here are our treaties and you are breaking them." Under proper representation, however, those Indians could put their views before the committee. I would earnestly suggest that representatives of these Indians sit in with the committee throughout the whole of its deliberations.
I would also direct the attention of the government to education and a training programme for the Indians. Evidence is abundant to prove that of the few Indians, out of the whole 125,000 or 130,000 who get an opportunity for education, so many have gone so far and done so much, that proof is hardly necessary for my contention that the Indian could be made into a great man and a great leader. Under existing educational and training facilities, however, the opportunities are small.
Here is a school statement from the department's own report of 1945 showing that out of the whole of the Indians of Canada in every province and in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, some 132,000 Indians, the children from the ages of seven to sixteen who went to school in 1945, only 56 reached grade nine, 171 reached grade eight, 400 reached grade seven and 600 reached grade six. Of thousands of Indian children, that is the extent of their education.
These people can never advance until that condition is changed. I agree that it is not an easy problem but it is one that must be approached with understanding. It must be approached scientifically and with a view to providing efficient training and education for the Indians. They must be established in decent homes. It is no use having children coming to school if they are to spread disease among the others. They cannot come from homes where there is filth or dirt, because in that case they will only spread these diseases. They must be established economically and schools must be provided where the children will have an opportunity for proper education which will develop their abilities.
The present system of residential schools is not meeting the problem. I know there are residential schools where good work is done but there are many where children are not getting an opportunity of attending classes. Moreover, they attend classes for half a day. Actually the number of hours spent in the classroom is not sufficient for the number of students who show ability to carry on and to take on further training.
I am going to recommend for the study of this committee-and I hope it will be available to it-a complete report of what has been done in the United States with regard to freeing these people, giving them power and raising them from the status of wards to the position of free men.
Citizenship is a matter of contention. There are many Indians who want it and many who do not. I hope that this committee will thresh it out. My contention is that since these Indians show capacity and a desire to become citizens they should be given citizenship rights;

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
and if they so desire they should also retain their rights under the treaty, as is done in the United States. No citizenship should ever be forced upon these people if they do not want it.
If this committee finds, when it starts its work, that it requires so much attention that it will have to be continued as a committee I hope that it will be set up year after year to receive reports from the Indians until the day comes when they can speak for themselves.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) made one statement which should be corrected at once. As I understood him, he said that the infant mortality rate for Indians was, he understood, 50 per cent.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to correct that.


Brooke Claxton: On reflection I am sure he would like to correct it.


George Hugh Castleden: I have not all the figures and reports, but from the reports that I have for certain areas in northern parts of Canada the infant mortality rate is 50 per cent.
_ Mr. CLAXTON: Fifty per cent? Of course it is possible that at a locality two children may be born and one of them die within a year of the birth of the two of them, and that would make the rate 50 per cent in that spot. It would give a totally wrong impression to say that the rate for Indians is 50 per cent or anything like it. The rate, of course, is very much less. I have the rate for deaths from diseases peculiar to the first year of life. This is the infant mortality rate measured per 100,000. While the rate for Indians undoubtedly is higher than the rate for white people, it is quite different from anything like 50 per cent.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Has the minister the comparative figures for the whites?


Brooke Claxton: I believe we can give this information morq suitably when the committee sits. I should not like to take up the time now when there is a strong desire on the part of all hon. members to have this resolution carried and the committee set up and at work.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Is the minister sure that the rate is estimated on the 100,000? Is not the infant mortality rate considered as so many per thousand live births?
Mr. CLAXTONc It could be either way:
I am giving it as it was given to me. The health of Indians has been a matter of serious concern to the government for some time. On

November 1, 1945, as the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) said, responsibility for the health and hospitalization of Indians was transferred to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
At the time of the transfer the Department of Mines and Resources, Indian Affairs branch, had prepared plans for a considerable extension of hospital and health facilities among the Indians and Eskimos. Since we have had the responsibility in the other department we have reviewed these plans and extended them in some respects. If hon. members will look at the estimates they will see that there is a considerable increase in the amount provided over last year. I hope that this is an increase for which we shall have the support of members in every part of the house.
With regard to the health of Eskimos in the far north I may say that we had a conference here on February 8 of this year, which was attended by some of the prominent doctors who have made the trip to the far north in recent years, such doctors as Doctor Dennis Jordan, Doctor Campbell Laidlaw, Doctor George S. McCarthy, Doctor George Hooper, and Doctor W. L. Crewson representing the National Institute for the Blind. We have had their assistance in drawing up plans for dealing with the exceedingly difficult problems of the Eskimo, and we hope to be able to do something further to extend the service that they have already been given in that field where there are some 7,700 Eskimos scattered over a territory of nearly 700,000 square miles.
The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) spoke about the possibility of a hospital being constructed on the shores of James bay. That is under consideration. There are some 3,759 Indians in the neigbour-hood, plus some 1,200 Eskimos on the eastern shores of James bay and Hudson bay. It is felt that a hospital or additional facilities are needed there, and that is receiving consideration.
Consideration is being given; indeed active steps are being taken to increase hospital accommodation in many centres. Only on Wednesday of last week I visited the band of the Six Nations at or near Brantford which was referred to by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). There I saw the Lady Willingdon hospital, a small hospital of eighteen beds, with two doctors and three nurses, which is doing excellent work in looking after the health of the Six Nations Indians on the Six Nations reserve. So far as the statistics go I think it will be found that the health of the Indians on that reserve is probably as good as that of the white people

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
around in every respect except-that of tuber-culois, where the death-rate is considerably higher.
The suggestions that have been made by hon. members in a helpful way during the course of this debate with regard to the health and hospitalization of Indians will be taken into consideration. When the committee sits we shall have available any information that we have, and we shall be prepared to discuss any matters of interest to the members of the committee or in the interests of the welfare of the Indians themselves.


George Hugh Castleden: In reply to the minister I should like to say my plea was for this committee to get the actual statistics with regard to the health of Indians, and to clear up the doubts. When I made my statement I was not referring to the infant mortality rate as 50 per cent, but that report had been brought down.


Mr. J. E. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: I also wish to Join with others in expressing a word of commendation to the minister for having introduced this motion to-day. I should also like to congratulate him on the splendid presentation that he made.
It is quite true that I am not the chief of an Indian clan; I am too young, but I hope I can lay claim to the fact that I have been, am now and hope I always shall be, a friend of the Indian. He is not of the mentality of the white man; but I believe the constitution of this committee offers a splendid opportunity to do something worth while for the elevation of that part of our human race.
In the constituency that I represent there are two residential schools, one at Elkhorn, Manitoba, of which I have heard splendid reports, but I am not so intimately familiar with the work done in that school as I am with the work done in another school a couple of miles from Brandon. For the last thirty-five years I have been in close touch with the work of that school, first under the direction of the late Doctor Ferrier, than under Doctor Doyle, now retired, who succeeded him, and at the present time under the Reverend 0. B. Stroppe, who has a long experience in Indian affairs. I can bear testimony to the splendid work which has been done in that school down through the years. Those who have attended that school have, in later life, gone on to other seats of learning and have made their mark, not only educationally but in whatever vocation they followed, agriculture or otherwise.
I have heard it said frequently, that after finishing their courses at the residental schools
very often those young boys and girls go back to the reserves and lapse right back into the old ways. I have made inquiry in that connection, and I find that in many instances they do lapse for perhaps a year or two but that almost invariably they stage a comeback, so that a little- later you find them taking a more forward place in the affairs of the band and endeavouring to make a better livelihood than otherwise would have been the case. I believe a great deal depends upon the teacher. This matter was mentioned by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). We can quite appreciate how difficult it must be for those in charge of the educational section of the department to secure and retain really good teachers on many reserves. Like the rest of us, teachers are human, and probably the conditions they find in regard to residence for white people on the reserves are not of the best, so that I believe this subject must be a headache for those in the department having charge of education.
In the western part of my constituency we have a reserve to which I should like to take the minister some day, when the crops are flourishing, to show him what has been done there from an agricultural point of view. We have there an efficient farm instructor, and the progress in agriculture that has been made on that reserve is to my mind, simply marvellous. It is good land; they raise good crops; they till the soil well, and they have made a marked success during the past few years. Apparently those Indians have a new spirit to-day. They have fine herds of stock; they are not pure bred, but I believe the day is coming when those young Indians will be exhibiting at the fairs, and you will see them carrying off some of the red ribbons.
Again, we must not forget the loyalty of the Indians, many of whom have served their country. The Indian has always been loyal to the best of his ability. I recall a sentence or two written by Lord Dufferin after he made an extended trip across Canada during his regime as governor general. After speaking of the attitude of the average Indian toward our sovereign, he went on to speak of the-
. . . untutored halfbreed hoisting some cloth or rag above his humble shanty, and of the stolid Indian in forest or reserve marshaling forth his picturesque symbol of fidelity in glad allegiance to his country's queen.
The Indian has always been loyal, and we would not be loyal to the best traditions of our race if we did not see to it that he is

Indian Affairs-Joint Committee
taken care of and that his living conditions are made better than they have been in the past.


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear so many expressions of appreciation of the fine qualities and characteristics of the Indians. If we really believe what we have said we are all set to give them the advantages that will bring out and develop these qualities, and allow the Indians to make a fine contribution to Canadian life. I thought the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) performed a useful service in making a survey of Indians who had succeeded in various lines, but I was sorry to learn that three of them had gone to Detroit, one to Ohio and another to New Zealand. More than half of those who have made outstanding successes have left Canada. I believe we should see if we cannot offer them some inducement to serve their own people here. With the advantages they have gained through their experience outside this country they might be the better qualified to come back and help meet the problem here. I believe that would be particularly true of the person who has gone to New Zealand, because when I was in that country a few years ago I was astonished to learn that the Maori people there elect four Maori members to sit in the New Zealand parliament with all the rights of members, including one with the statutory right to be a member of the cabinet. Sometimes that person holds a portfolio; at other times he is a member without portfolio, but they tell you there that one of the best ministers of health they ever had was a Maori. They tell you also that it is not uncommon to have a Maori New Zealander say to a white New Zealander, "Remember the day when my grandfather ate your grandfather," because when the white people went to New Zealand the Maoris were cannibals. So that I think we should learn from other parts of the commonwealth what may be done to develop the possibilities inherent in native peoples.
I hope the minister will not consider that in citing examples of what happens in other places we are being critical. Far too often, it seems to me, the government go on the defensive and try to prove that we are traitors or something of the kind when we mention the possibilities that other countries have explored. I hope they will be good enough to asume that we, too, are ambitious for the record of Canada. We too would like to be proud of our treatment of our native people; and whether we sit on this side or 
the other side we would like to see reforms carried out that will make us the envy of other parts of the commonwealth.
I have only another moment or two at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to say that I believe we should give special training to teachers engaged in handling Indian children, and special, training to the administrators who apply the Indian Act. First of all, I believe these persons should be humanists, with social vision and broad sympathies. In my experience, which has been limited, in talking with Indian agents and Indian doctors, too often I have been discouraged by the attitude of these people who have the lives Of the Indians in their hands. Too often they regard the Indians very lightly, with nothing but contempt. I hope that is not a sample of the sort of people who work for the government, and to-day I was glad1 to hear reference made to persons of outstanding accomplishments and achievements in that department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
A't six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour which is based upon two telegrams I received this morning, one from the mayor of the town of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, and the other from the president of the Cape Breton labour council. I have sent copies of the telegrams to the minister so that he knows their subject-matter. Has the government considered the advisability of extending the period for which unemployment insurance benefits may be paid in areas where there is a serious unemployment problem with no immediate relief in sight? Second, has the government considered the advisability of extending the time period for which out-of-work benefits may be paid to ex-service personnel when employment cannot be had in the communities in which they reside?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member was good
enough to give me a notice of his question and I may say that I received similar telegrams. I should like to say this for the

Labour Conditions
general information of hon. members. There are 1,106 applicants for work registered at the Glace Bay employment office. Of this number 262 males are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, and 566 veterans' out-of-work benefits. An additional 350 were receiving unemployment insurance benefits, but the period for which they were entitled to these benefits has lapsed and payments have been stopped.
The employment situation on Cape Breton island, including Glace Bay, is not good. It is true that agricultural workers, some men for the coal mines at Sydney and a number for fishing are still required. However, it is not feasible for all those registered for employment to accept the work available and many of them are not able to do the work. Housing, the type of work to be done and the physical disabilities of the unemployed are factors.
The labour department has provided for issuance of transportation to other parts of the country and men are being moved to places where jobs are open, but the general situation in the maritimes is such that possibilities for transfer are not great. Nevertheless, transportation is being supplied where a satisfactory transfer can be arranged. The movement of a number of men from Cape Breton island to the state of Maine for lumbering and logging is being considered. The United States authorities have asked that some men be furnished for this work. It is anticipated that some wharf construction work can proceed early in June and that the repair work in the Sydney shipyards will increase from now on. The situation is under constant study by the labour department and the reconstruction department and everything possible is being done to work out a satisfactory solution.
One of the proposals which was before the dominion-provincial conference was that the dominion government establish a system of assistance to able-bodied unemployed persons. However, pending the conclusion of a general agreement between the dominion and the provinces the responsibility {or such relief is on the local authorities, the municipalities in the first instance, and then the provinces.


Clarence Gillis: If I understood the minister correctly, he said that the government has not considered the advisability of extending the benefits of unemployment insurance. My inquiry a moment ago-


James Horace King: I would direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he has already asked his question.


Clarence Gillis: I did not get an answer.


James Horace King: It looks to me as though this is developing into a debate rather than just questions. The rules are quite clear that a lengthy question should be placed upon the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OP CONFERENCE TO CONSIBER INDUSTRIAL SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to direct a question to the acting leader of the government. In view of disturbing reports of the possibilities of impending industrial strife, has the government considered the advisability of calling a conference of representatives of the government, labour, farmers and employers in an effort to prevent grave economic dislocations?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not a great believer in having too many conferences, although sometimes they are necessary. Probably my hon. friend has a vivid recollection of the conference called by President Truman. That conference did not do a great deal to increase industrial stability in the United States; at least I do not think so. As I have said before, we have ample machinery for meeting any industrial condition that arises. There are many statements made in the press to-day *which in my judgment show an utter lack of responsibility. Irrespective of the government that may be in power, whether it is made up of my hon. friend's followers or of the official opposition, when you have built up machinery which in a general way is equal to handling these problems, I think it is the duty of employers' organizations and of labour organizations to avail themselves of that machinery. That machinery was created by agreement, in a broad way of course, between the federal government, the provincial government, labour organizations and employers' organizations.
As I said last week in this house, I do not think anyone is rendering a service to his country when he says he will not use the machinery that has been established. In the main, out of the tens of thousands of cases that have been dealt with by these boards, composed of representatives of labour and of employers with impartial chairmen, there have been very few which have gone off the rails. I think my hon. friend will agree with me when I say that there are certain forces in this and other countries which do not want industrial peace. What they want is strife. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail on both sides so that we can go through this very difficult period in good shape, in the best interests of the working people and the in-
Labour Conditions

dustrial structure which is necessary if they are to be employed. I do not think I can say much more than that.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a supplementary question? I quite agree that labour and the employer should be brought together, but if reports are correct more people are involved than just the employer and the worker. It seems to me that the whole community is involved, and that was the reason for my question.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it can be truthfully said that we have been reasonably successful in the settlement of industrial disputes. My hon. friend may rest assured that everything will be done that can be done to settle these disputes. However, I do not think so-called responsible people should be getting up and saying that they will not obey the law or avail themselves of the machinery set up.



AVAILABILITY OF PRISONERS OF WAR TO SUGAR BEET GROWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. JUTRAS (Provencher):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and it has nothing to do with the subject we have just been discussing. Will the Minister of Labour tell the house what provisions have been made to provide German prisoners of war as labour for sugar beet cultivation in the Red river valley district of Manitoba in view of the fact that no reference was made to this most important district in the recent announcement of the provincial farm help service of Manitoba as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press issue of last Thursday?	,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: The hon. member's question should be to the point.


Humphrey Mitchell: In reply to the hon. member I am able to state that our plans call for the establishment of about ten hostels or centres through which we shall use German prisoners of war as labourers in the sugar beet industry in Manitoba.
I can assure the hon. member for Provencher that the Red river valley area will not be overlooked. I believe that six of the ten centres we are establishing will be in that valley. Plans to open the first two at Emerson and Letellier by May 24 have already been made. There will be at least one hundred prisoners of war at each centre.



KING GEORGE VI


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL HOMUTH (Waterloo South):: May I ask the Secretary of State when we may expect a proclamation with respect to His Majesty's birthday?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope to be able to say something on that later in the week.



HALIFAX CITADEL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Karl Kenneth Homuth: May I ask the responsible minister of the government, or the minister who is leading the house, if a royal salute was fired at the Citadel in Halifax to-day and, if so, why?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no information on the subject but I will find out just as soon as I can.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 8, consideration in committee of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, and naturalization and status of aliens-Mr. Martin- Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: The committee is considering the amendment to clause 10 moved by Mr. Diefenbaker to add the following words:
Such certificate of citizenship shall be deemed to include a bill of rights, as follows-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Mr. HACKETT:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the amendment and to draw to the attention of the committee that the amendment is one which has attracted the attention of the whole dominion which has been shocked at some of the practices that have been resorted to in what have been styled the "spy" investigations. In years past we have been critical of practices in another country which we have referred to as strong-arm practices, and which we thought could never come into existence in our own country. Even if this bill be not the ideal place to set forth these traditional rights it is well that we avail ourselves of the very first moment to put on record the indignation which is felt through-

Canadian Citizenship
out the land at the stories that have come out of what took place in the investigation into the activities of these men.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, before the vote is taken on the amendment I should like to take a few moments of the committee's time to present the view of the group which I represent with respect to the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre.
During the debate which has taken place, particularly between the hon. member for Lake Centre and the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State, I listened most carefully hoping to get the answers to two questions that arose in my mind. It is those two questions that I should like to discuss briefly before the committee to-night. The first of these is, do we now need a new charter of liberties?
It is sometimes argued, indeed I heard it argued in this very chamber, that we already have Magna Charta, the Petition of Rights, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights as the root and core of the common law part of the Canadian constitution; that they constitute a sufficient bill of rights to safeguard the liberty of Canadian citizens, and that, therefore, we need no further bill of rights. This argument raises interesting questions particularly in the mind of any person who is familiar with the history of Great Britain, from whom we obtained the common law which is part of the constitution of Canada. These are some of the questions.
Why was it that the British people found it necessary to enact habeas corpus when they already had Magna Charta? And why the Bill of Rights when they already had Magna Charta, the Petition of Right and habeas corpus? I submit that a study of British liberties reveals the fact that they were won gradually and as a result of struggles that lasted over a long period of time. Each charter was a reenactment of charters of freedom previously in existence, together with a statement of expanded liberty, freedoms newly won. Thus the Petition of Right of 1628 reaffirmed the promises of Magna Charta, and in addition to that provided protection for the subjects in Great Britain from the depredations and the encroachments of Charles I.
Again, I submit that habeas corpus in 1679 grew out of article 39 of Magna Charta and was a restatement of Magna Charta and an enlargement upon it. The Bill of Rights of 1689 began by reciting the declaration of rights, which was nothing but a statement of all the individual freedoms which had been won up to that time. Then it went on to declare further freedoms as inviolable for the future protection of the citizens of Britain.
Thus, freedom grew naturally. Each new step was a natural outgrowth of something already in existence. Each new charter was a restatement of and an enlargement upon charters previously granted by the monarch of the time.
That has been the outstanding characteristic of Anglo-Saxon development, and that also, I submit, should be the natural growth of things Canadian. At no time did Britons ever cut themselves off from the past, and I submit that at no time should Canadians ever cut themselves off wholly from things past. But as we grow, it seems to me our enlargement and development should be out of things already in existence.
It is noteworthy that periodically Britons felt that they had to reaffirm the freedoms already won. These reaffirmations always came at a time following great struggles during which miguided monarchs had succeeded in encroachments upon the liberties of the people, or following periods when some freedoms of the people were suspended for the purpose of meeting crises.
We have just emerged from the greatest struggle which the human race has ever faced -sixteen years of it. I say sixteen years of it because we have had two great wars following one another very closely, one economic, and the other military, both the most tragic in all history. In the course of these struggles personal liberties have gradually declined and the powers of the state have correspondingly increased. During both great struggles of those sixteen years we have had a marked but steady and certain decline in human values, and a steady but sure increase in the materialistic emphasis. During the thirties men, women and children starved or were driven half-starved from place to place in their efforts to find food and comfort, and they were hardly noticed by those who were in a position to do something about the matter. In the military war human beings were counted pretty cheap and there was a growing indifference on all sides and in every nation to human suffering and to mass human destruction. I submit that such a decline in the morality of nations and of their estimate of human values undoubtedly does call-for a new bill of rights, a new charter of freedoms of the citizen to meet the conditions of this day.
Churchill and Roosevelt must have felt this need when they declared the Atlantic charter. Unfortunately, the Atlantic charter has not been taken up by the nations. Rather, I submit, it has been forgotten if not tacitly revoked.
Again, during the war we in Canada surrendered to the government some of our free-
Canadian Citizenship

doms in order to help Canada to meet the great crisis which faced us and successfully to achieve our part in the world struggle. I need hardly remind hon. members that we fought that war to preserve our freedoms. Now that the war is over, there is definite need to redefine in clear and unmistakable terms just what freedoms and rights individuals shall have in this country, now and for the future, and just what rights are to be yielded up by the government that have been temporarily surrendered to them by individual Canadians. Governments have a habit of trying to make themselves into the all-powerful "State", and that is something we do not want in Canada. This is the time for the people of this and of every other country to assert their determination not only to preserve freedoms which have been won for them at great cost in the past, but also to enlarge their freedoms, to show their determination to enlarge those freedoms. It seems to me that we must add to the freedoms already won through past generations, and now issue a new declaration of freedoms: freedom of our people to consume what they require of the abundance that we can produce; freedom of choice, which goes hand in hand and closely with the freedom to own property and to conduct a business so long as in the holding of property and the conducting of the business, our citizens do not interfere with the same rights of other citizens in this country; freedoms, I mean, in addition to all freedoms which we have won in the past. I believe, therefore, that- a new charter of liberties of Canadian citizens should now be laid down.
The second question I had in my mind was this: is the amendment presented by the hon. member for Lake Centre the type of restatement of liberties of the subject or the citizen that we want? In the first place, I must say that I do not like to see such an important thing tucked away in an inconspicuous place in a bill such as the citizenship bill, although if it is to be related to a bill at all I can see that this is, perhaps, the best one to which to relate it. However, I should like to urge upon the members of this house the necessity of introducing at the earliest possible time a completely new bill which will be a real charter of Canadian liberties.
There is at least one government in Canada which has already recognized the necessity for such a thing, and I make brief reference to one such measure which has been laid down here in the dominion. I refer to bill 76, passed unanimously by the legislature of Alberta, which is known as "An act respecting the rights of Alberta citizens". I wish to quote two or three sections from it to indicate

exactly what I mean by an enlargement upon freedoms already won. From part I of the bill I first quote sections 3 and 4:
3.	It is hereby declared that every Citizen of Alberta shall be free to hold and cherish his own religious convictions and to worship in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.
4.	It is hereby declared that every citizen of Alberta shall be entitled to enjoy freedom of expression provided that he does not violate the defamation laws in force in the province or the criminal code of Canada.
5.	It is hereby declared that every citizen of Alberta shall be free in association with other citizens, to assemble for any lawful purpose in accordance with the laws in force in the province.
6.	It is hereby declared that every citizen of Alberta shall be free to engage in the work of his choice which may be available to him within the province.
That is a statement of something which has not been included in any charter in this or any other country, and it is, I submit, an important freedom if people are to be in congenial employment. Next:
7.	It is hereby declared that every citizen of Alberta shall be free to acquire land and enjoy the use of his home and property without interference or molestation, so long as he conforms to the laws in force in the province for safeguarding the lives, property and personal rights of other citizens.
8.	It is hereby declared that every citizen of Alberta shall be free to do or refuse to do any act or thing within the limitations of the laws in force in the province, provided that thereby he does not infringe upon the same right of any other citizen.
I emphasize, Mr. Chairmaa, that that is one of the great freedoms for which the people of the world have fought; freedom of choice, without which there cannot be complete freedom of conscience; and I say that it is most important to have that laid down now in a declaration.
9.	It is hereby declared that every citizen of Alberta of not less than nineteen years of age and not more than sixty years of age is entitled as a right of citizenship to,-
(a)	the opportunity to engage in gainful employment; or	_
(b)	if gainful employment is not available, to a social security pension.
That is, the right of the citizen to consume of the abundance which we produce, even if he has not the opportunity to labour.
These comprise at least some suggestion of the type of bill which might be brought into this House of Commons; and if the hon. member for Lake Centre, or anyone else for that matter, will bring in a bill of that type, a complete declaration of the rights of Canadians citizens, he certainly will have my support. If there is no prospect that a bill of that kind will be brought in and have a good chance to pass this house, naturally I am

Canadian Citizenship
bound to take the next best choice, which is to support the hon. member for Lake Centre in the amendment which he has proposed. But I really believe that it belittles such an important matter as a charter of freedoms and of the rights of individual citizens to have it tucked away in an inconspicuous place in a bill such as we have before us.
Finally, I wish to say this. The rights of citizens have been obscured through sixteen years of conflict, economic and military. And in discussions, political, economic and constitutional, which have taken place between the provinces and the dominion in their attempt to find a satisfactory allocation of the powers of government, we have completely overlooked the most important responsibility we have-the individual citizen of this country. He it is who should be considered; he is the man whose rights should be the fount and source of all the things we do. It is not for us to fight and bicker over what this government or that government shall have the power to do. It is for us to determine and define once again the rights and liberties of our people. Because the rights of our citizens have been obscured, I say it is high time that we clarified the whole situation. I am anxious for that clarification, and I suggest to the hon. member for Lake Centre or to anyone else that if he can see his way clear to bring in a bill of rights of Canadian citizens he will get the enthusiastic support of the group I represent.


Mr. CROLL:: With reference to the amendment, I think the time has come for some positive action on the part of the government pertaining to a bill of rights. At this stage there is not much that can be said that has not already been said. I do not know whether this amendment in its present form will answer the purpose; I rather doubt it. I do not know whether it is wise at this stage to add another clause to the citizenship bill, nor do I think it wise to add a preamble. But I feel that a clear and concise statement on the matter of citizenship rights is long overdue, and I think this is a good time for us to consider a bill of rights which will act as a bulwark for the cause of free men.
In the past we have held the theory that the personal liberty of the subject has been fully protected by the British common law and by the Canadian constitution, but now we must face up to realities and realize that the liberty of the subject is not fully protected. I wish to prick the conscience of the committee for a few moments by recalling some episodes to hon. members.
I can well recall the padlock law, which was an abridgement of the right of assembly, and
which is still a part of the law of one of the provinces. I remember well section 98 of the criminal code, which was an assault on the civil liberties of every individual in this country. It took years and years before we were able to get rid of it. I remember also references in this house to various deportations that took place at one time or another in Canada when men were arrested, whisked away, and before legal process could be put into force were taken out of the country.
Most members will recall vividly that the Japs in this country were deprived of both their natural and their legal rights, and I have not much to say about the most recent spy case, except to remark that it was an arbitrary use of government power.
These are not isolated cases. The other day I came across a case which I think will be interesting to the committee. It was reported in the Toronto Telegram of November 10 and reads:
When customers of the Runnymede hardware store complained that they did not like being waited on by a Jew, Earl Fleming, the proprietor, discharged Joseph Moses, twenty-nine year old war veteran, and set off a spontaneous storm of protest from the Canadian Legion . . . Earle Burgess, of St. Thomas, president of the Canadian Legion's Ontario command, labelled such discrimination "a vicious thing which must be crushed by all right-thinking Canadians."
I bring this to the attention of the committee because we find here a man who was fit to fight but not fit to serve. The Toronto Star of that day carried an editorial in which it said:
It is a disgraceful thing that a veteran, or anyone else for that matter, should lose his job in a Toronto hardware store because the customers "did not like being waited on by a Jew." The man in question was educated in the schools of the district in -which he recently found employment after returning from service in France. He -was good enough to serve his country overseas, but not good enough, it seems, to wait upon his fellow citizens when they were buying hardware. Those who complained about him and lost him his position should be ashamed of their narrowness and prejudice. They have the consolation of knowing that their attitude is exactly that which Hitler approved and practised.
The Toronto Globe and Mail, which haa always put up a good fight for civil liberties, had this to say:
There are no words of condemnation too harsh to apply to the people in the neighbourhood of Runnymede store, who took it upon themselves to protest the employment of a Jewish war veteran as a clerk in the store. Complaint was not based upon discourtesy or inefficiency, which might have been a legitimate reason for objection, but simply because the young man was a Jew. It is a disgrace to the whole community that such barefaced prejudice should exhibit itself in this manner. It is the negation of everything that the word British should convey.
Canadian Citizenship

Further down.
The least favourable aspect of this matter is that these prejudice-ridden people were depriving of his job a young man who had willingly risked his life in their defence, in the armed forces of the country. He was in the army for three years, and saw active service in Europe. As he has justly said, no one told him he wasn't good enough to serve on account of his religion. All too little credit has been given to the Jewish people in Canada for the extent of their war effort, for that matter. On the most conservative estimates, not counting those who may have served in other allied forces, no fewer than 10,116 Canadian Jews served in the army, 5,870 in the air force, and 573 in the navy.' These comprise ten per cent of the Jewish population, a most admirable record. Of the 800 casualties, more than 200 made the supreme sacrifice. More than 165 won decorations.
Again:
In the light of all this, it might be asked when some Canadians are going to become mature. Those who criticize or display prejudice against any racial or religious group are vulgarians. They are consumed with an envy for obvious talent, or resent the willing capacity for hard work. It is time they put aside such unworthy attitudes and agree to live and let live. Because certain mean people vented their evil spite upon a man whose only crime was a difference in religion and ancestry, the whole community is a meaner place in which to live. It is time these displays of prejudice were stopped.
I would point out that the name of this hardware store was the Runnymede-a historic name indeed; for it was at Runnymede that the first blow for freedom was struck. I put this to the committee: Who understood better the lesson of Runnymede, the soldier who was deprived of his job or the people who had complained?
I pass on to my next point, which is this. Our people need education in citizenship. It is important that the laws be codified and be added to, and it is important also that we put upon our statute books a bill of rights in order to protect people not only against other individuals but against governments, yes, against governments which are sometimes colourblind.
It is often necessary to restate principles that appear only too obvious. I know the argument used is that if you write a law you narrow it, but it is better to make it too narrow than to have it entirely neglected. I do not think the present amendment covers the ground. I do not think the mover felt that in forty-four words he can write a bill of rights, although I should compliment him on the words he carefully used. We should serve notice upon this House of Commons and upon those who are responsible, that the battle is on; that the members from all sides of the house have just started to fight; that the forces are now deployed; that we do not intend to give up at the present time, and that the gov-

eminent is now notified that we intend that it shall in due time produce a bill of rights which will be acceptable not only to the members of the house but also to the country at large.


Angus MacInnis: Before the hon. member for Lake Centre speaks I wish to say a few words. Most hon. members would be favourable to a bill of rights that would outline adequately, or as adequately as we can, the rights of the Canadian citizen. I believe the hon. member for Lake Centre would be the last person to say that, his amendment has done that. He has made an attempt to do that, but I believe that no sooner had he written it than he realized its shortcomings.
One thing of which I am sure, is that a bill of rights should not be made a part of a section of this bill. If a bill of rights is to be put into this bill at all it should go in as a preamble, and then it would become a guide to those who must interpret the citizenship act. But I wish to say something tht has not been said in the long debate on this amendment, namely, that no matter how broad and comprehensive a bill of rights may be it will not protect the rights of the citizens of Canada unless there is the will to protect them.
Mention has been made of the fact that in the United States they have a bill of rights written into the constitution, but it does not mean that every citizen in the United States is assured of his rights within the constitution. Those of us who have been close to affairs during the last thirty or more years realize that, despite the United States bill of rights, in that country things have been done to its citizens that would make any citizen of any country blush with shame. What happened during the war of 1914-18? As a matter of fact there were very little rights that any one had in the United States. Undoubtedly things have improved in the last few years. We hope that they will go on improving because there is still need to extend and broaden the rights of the negro in the United States, and he is a citizen. Therefore I would say that unless we in Canada have the will to protect essential rights, regardless of what we have in this bill or in the constitution, those rights will not be protected.
I do not believe that we can go so far as to say there can never be any interference with a citizen's rights that we would put in a bill. The time may come in the life of a country when, for the preservation of its life, it must, like an individual, take action which may at times seem to us arbitrary and cruel. But the times in which this action must be taken

Canadian Citizenship
should be very few, and the people should always be on the alert to see that the government does not go too far.
We remember that, after the fall of France, thousands of people who had come into Great Britain as refugees and who had been extended the protection of the British government and the constitution were swept up all at once and interned. The authorities considered that this action was necessary at that time because the preservation of the state itself was the most important thing that faced the people. But that did not continue very long. As soon as conditions became a little more stable they began sifting out the good from the bad and getting back to normal. Some of them came over here. They sent a representative over here, and those of us who heard him speak before the defence of Canada regulations committee really got an earful of how the British people respected the rights of individuals, excepting in moments of great peril.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Patterson.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, that was the name. The hon. member for Spadina said that we need education in citizenship. We need education in more than that; we need education in tolerance and in human rights. Once we depart from dealing with man as man, there is nothing to indicate where we are to stop. It is a well known fact that Hitler began with the persecution of the Jews, but he ended up by depriving everybody in Germany of liberty. We have come pretty close to that in Canada. Until we get away from that and consider the rights of every human individual we are not going to protect those rights as they should be protected.
The principle of the amendment is something that I would support, but the amendment itself is so restricted in its terms that I do not see there is anything to be accomplished by adding it to the bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: To a large degree I
agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. His remarks were like a breath of fresh air in this debate. I believe in the British way of doing things. We have heard a lot this evening and in previous days on this debate about the bill of rights. What we need to-day is a bill of responsibilities. This evening I was asked a question by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar with respect to certain conditions in this country. The hon. member for Vancouver East knows about them as well as I do. He knows their policy and their approach to industrial relations. He knows they say: "We are not going to obey the law; we are going to take the law into our own hands."
I get tired of hearing people talk so much about rights and not enough about responsibilities. The mere fact that something is put down on paper does not always ensure its application. I have had some experience with the labour movement in this country and in Europe. While I am not going to name countries, I would point out that one of the Balkan countries approved more conventions of the international labour office than any other country in the world. Yet I think it fair to say that industrial conditions in that country were possibly the most backward in Europe. My hon. friend the leader of the Social Credit party read a bill of rights which I think was passed by the legislature of Alberta.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, unanimously.


Humphrey Mitchell: I hope my hon. friend will not find fault with me when I say I did not notice in that bill of rights anything about $25 a month.


Solon Earl Low: The minister might notice that it would be more if proper pension arrangements were made.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a moment. My mind goes back to when that government was first elected; at that time I was chairman of a commission which was touring western Canada. Let me say to my hon. friend that 'for a good, clean government that of Alberta is equal to any in the Dominion of Canada in matters of day-to-day administration. But we must remember that in some sections of Canada we have large bodies of people who have come from persecution to freedom almost in one jump. They do not altogether understand the workings of democracy as they are understood by those of us who for generations have been trained in that direction. I remember many of those simple souls out there really thought that one month after that election they would-begin to receive $25 every month. I believe in the British way. I am opposed to putting it down on paper, as has been suggested by my hon. and good friend from Lake Centre. As the hon. member for Vancouver South has said-


Angus MacInnis: Vancouver East.


Humphrey Mitchell: I keep on saying "South", but I do not believe the hon. gentleman would have received the same majority in Vancouver South that he got in Vancouver East.
I think it is far better done by precedent and understanding of the basic principles of our institutions; and I thought I would just put forward the point of view that with rights go responsibilities. I think rights have been established in this country. Some hon. gentle-
Canadian Citizenship

men have talked about people in this country who were arrested for breaking the oath of office they took upon assuming office as civil servants; that was also mentioned by the hon. member for Spadina. I never thought I would live to see the day when anybody in Canada would be charged with an offence of that description. When one reads the press and listens- to some of the speeches one would almost think some of these people had won a military decoration, or the Victoria Cross. They will be prosecuted by due process of law; and as the hon. member for Vancouver East rightly said, the government, charged as it is with responsibility for the safety of the state, under certain circumstances has to do many things it would not do under normal conditions.
During the war we had to have selective service of a kind and character that I never thought we would have in Canada. My ministry was given the power of direction over the lives of the men and women of the country to an extent that never existed before, and that condition still exists in Great Britain. As to the communist philosophy, I am one of the few people in this house who have been to Russia. Just take a look at that country when you talk about democracy! I think this is the first thing to say, that in a comparative sense the degree of freedom existing in Canada to-day is equal to that existing in any other country. I hope we shall have the good sense to maintain the procedure adopted by the people of Great Britain and all the British countries, and let the broad and basic principles of freedom stand on the basis of the common law and those other things which have made this and the other countries of the British commonwealth what they are.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: All of which is said "in a kindly way".


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that.


Mr. IRVINE:: I wish to take just a few moments to mention a point which so far I do not think has been sufficiently emphasized in this discussion. Let me say at once that I am in full agreement with the sentiments expressed in the amendment. If I thought that was the only thing we could get I would favour voting for it, and probably I shall vote for it anyway just because it contains sentiments with which I am in agreement. But I hope it will not be taken in lieu of a real bill of rights. I also hope this parliament will not be satisfied with a mere reiteration of principles of rights, some of which were passed centuries ago, and not in this country at all. While these principles still have a value and we would wish to re-

tain them, yet there are other phases of liberty which we have never tasted and which I conceive should be fundamental in any bill of rights we might draw up.
The minister who has just taken his seat says he believes in what he calls the British way, of not writing it down on paper. I do not think there is any harm in doing that, but of course I agree with him that if that is all you do you are not doing much. But he is in an enviable position. If I were where he is and could write these things into the lives of the Canadian people by actions, I think it would be great; and if he will do that we shall not clamour for any bill of rights whatsoever. I agree that merely declaring something does not make it so. The hon. gentleman to my left has given us an outline of an admirable bill, in sentiment, passed in Alberta. These declarations have some value; they are at least declarations of faith, if nothing else; they are a declaration of the objective a nation sets for itself. But merely to declare that we shall have this liberty and that liberty will not give it.
The main point I wish to make is this. I want to see a bill of rights that will be up to date, that will put into legislation and practice in the economic, social and educational life of Canada those principles of liberty which I think we all conceive to have been the objectives of the men who fought in the last great war. I want to emphasize that the very basis of that must be economic liberty, for there can be no liberty in any country in which one individual must depend for his right to live upon the right of somebody else to hire him. We have seen too much of that kind of bondage. So that whether or not this amendment passes I hope it will not be regarded in this house or in the country as a complete bill of rights. I have the hope, expressed by my hon. friend to my left, that during this or next session a carefully prepared bill of rights will be brought in, which will begin with economic liberty and go on from that to restate in the most modern way possible all the other liberties which flow therefrom.
I believe the instances brought to the attention of this committee by the hon. member for' Spadina are a disgrace to Canada. I hope that those hon. members who heard that will feel as I do about it and protest against it. The circumstances which we all know are prevalent in this country where men cannot find work, where men have not sufficient income to maintain their families and give them an education-all this is a negation of our liberty. A country abounding in wealth as this one is should be ashamed

Canadian Citizenship
to know that such things exist. That is something I wanted to emphasize because it is not included in the amendment. A bill of rights should make economic liberty the basis of all liberties we desire to see in this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I think in every way this has been a most constructive debate. Apart altogether from the appropriateness of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre in regard to what is in my opinion a most important bill in this Commons of Canada, I think we shall all agree that basically we are not very far apart. I have, as one who was born and bred where freedom had to be fought for, where fredom was denied and defied, heard with some cynicism the nonsense that has been talked in this house about magna charta and the Bill of Rights. After that declaration given to the barons at Runnymede, after the Bill of Rights and the various reforms, everything was broken up by wars of tyranny.
A few years after Runnymede we had to fight at Bannockburn in Scotland in 1314. We had to fight again for our very existence at Flodden in 1513. This, despite all the great charters and rights which you prate of so greatly in this Canada, a country largely made up by those who loved freedom who came from Scotland. The hon. member for Vancouver East reminded this committee of that [DOT] the other evening. His people were the victims of tyranny in the highlands and so were mine. My grandmother's house was burned down because of tyranny and oppression. Where then was your bill of rights? Where then was your Magna Charta? Where then was your declaration of rights?
The hon. member for Vancouver East never said a truer thing in his life than when he said to-night that human rights, political rights and economic rights cannot be defined by charter. Basically and fundamentally they are in the soul and spirit of man. I think everyone of us in this chamber knows a little about the history of Canada. You had to fight in Canada for your rights. You are fighting for your rights to-day in Canada. No one can convince me that because of a matter of procedure which may affect the right of personal and political liberty you are going to destroy the fundamental rights of freedom. A poniard has been planted at the back of our nation, and when that happens it requires drastic remedies. Sometimes we have to sacrifice these personal liberties which may mean so much, and which I think I love as much as anyone, in order to preserve and maintain the freedom and strength of our nation.
You have the rights of the provinces in Canada. You have the rights of the federal authority in Canada. You have economic rights in Canada. You have fundamental human rights. Do you think for one second that this miserable, anaemic amendment meets the fundamental and basic problems of the rights of our people as Canadians, as Liberals, as Conservatives, as socialists or as those who come from Alberta? Like my hon. friend who spoke, I was amazed and ashamed. No one in this house has a higher respect for the hon. member for Peace River than I, but according to our accepted doctrines, what was the most wanton violation of fundamental rights that ever took place in this Dominion of Canada? It was that futile and fatuous measure by the former premier of Alberta who attempted to deprive men of the right of return on proper investment in the province. That may be right; according to the doctrines of the future, Alberta may be right. We are moving fast these days.
British Columbia has denied the franchise to orientals. Others think we are wrong, but we think we are right. Who here says that we are wrong?


Mr. PROBE:: I do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who says that?


John Oliver Probe: Right here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What a feeble voice heard alone!


John Oliver Probe: The hon. minister says-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Regina City has almost vindicated himself by his sudden appearance from his seat in trying to justify his miserable effort of just a moment before. Manitoba has Manitoba rights. Can anyone say that the great pioneer province of them all, Ontario, has no great Ontario rights. What about the province of Quebec, that province which I love? Why? For four hundred years the Scots brigade fought the battles of France. For once in history the Queen of France became Mary, Queen of Scotland. Have they no rights? What about Nova Scotia? Sometimes Quebec has too much pride. Do not forget Alexander who came to Nova Scotia in 1622. Do not forget the Hector which came to Canada in 1773. Do not forget the Selkirk settlers who came in 1811.
Did they come to Canada because of any bill of rights? They came to Canada to get freedom, and they got freedom in this country. They nursed and cherished that freedom, and because of that we have freedom to-day in this Dominion of Canada. The hon. member for Lake Centre and I are very close together
Canadian Citizenship

in this thing, but I suggest to him to-night that this is far greater than this trivial and piffling amendment dealing with three simple rights among a multitude of rights.
Why cannot we in this parliament get together on this issue? Why cannot all parties form a committee to consider these things apart altogether from this bill? If necessary, that committee could call in advisers from the various provinces.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Is that not what I suggested?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not what this piffling amendment says at all, and that is why I say we cannot support the amendment. We should have a joint committee to go into this matter calmly, thoroughly and completely. I think we are all animated by the same great human desire to analyse as far as we can and with due consistency our historical rights, the rights of the provinces, of the federal domain, of labour, of industry and all the various other rights that may be involved. Then in a time, not too long away, we can fashion and evolve a declaration of principles if you like-a bill of rights has a somewhat obnoxious significance to my mind because of my little knowledge of old country history-a declaration of Canadian principles containing the real stuff of freedom, the principles for which our people have fought and are now fighting.
May I say to my hon. friend that the place for that is not in connection with this bill; the place for it is in those terms which may be brought to reality in a year or so from now, terms which would contain a joint declaration of this parliament and sent, if necessary, for such comment as might be made upon them to the provinces of Canada. And thereby may I say with the greatest possible respect for my hon. friend, whom I deeply respect that we shall be worthy of the traditions of this great country of ours, and worthy of the great principles of freedom of the various provinces, and so build a charter worthy of the future of this nation which we all jointly love.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, in his efforts to achieve the championship of political opportunists in Canada the Minister of Veterans Affairs has made some pretty wild statements in addition to some that were fundamentally sound.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mostly wild.


Solon Earl Low: Pretty wild. There is one thing that I should like to ask the minister to be good enough to repeat, because in his exuberance he lapsed at times into his native tongue and it was difficult for me to understand him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is one of my rights.


Solon Earl Low: It is also my right when the minister attacked a man who is now dead and not here to defend himself, to ask the minister just what it was that he said, and I will proceed to take him to task myself when he repeats what I think he said. I want to know what it was the minister said about my former leader in the proyince of Alberta. I understood him to say that he had divested people of their property and civil rights. I should like to know if that is what he meant, because, if so, I want to answer it. What was the minister referring to, if he does not wish to repeat his statement?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was referring, Mr. Chairman, if I am bound to reply, and I think I am


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member is not bound to reply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to reply. I was referring to a radical departure in financial policy which was sponsored by the government of Alberta and which in my humble judgment was a derogation of honourable agreements made by the province with those to whom it had financial obligations.


Solon Earl Low: As I said, that is attacking a dead man who has no chance to answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Laurier is dead too.


Solon Earl Low: That is so, but that is a different matter from calling a man by name in the tone and with the feeling with which the minister attacked a man who is not here to defend himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say at once that I have the greatest possible respect for Premier Aberhart.


Solon Earl Low: There is one thing I should like to say in reply, and that is that the minister himself, if he were faced with the situation with which the then premier of Alberta was faced in 1935, would have done exactly the same thing that the then premier of Alberta did.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Solon Earl Low: I am speaking of rights now which is what we are discussing on this bill and I am not going to be hushed by any politicians on the other side of the house. I have a right to say what I am going to say.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. No hon. member will be hushed in this house, and there is no way of hushing any member. The sug-

Canadian Citizenship
gestion is not a proper one. I would remind all hon. members that we are considering an amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre and that all remarks must be relevant to that amendment.


Solon Earl Low: I am speaking now, Mr. Chairman, to the amendment. I am speaking of fundamental Canadian rights as represented in the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I am answering a charge in respect of those rights made by a responsible so-called,-minister of the crown.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member
should not use the word "so-called" in that sense. It is entirely improper.


Solon Earl Low: "So-called" was in reference to the preceding word and not to "minister of the crown". I am dealing now with fundamental rights of Canadian citizens, and I say that if the hon. minister who is leading the. government in the house to-night had been in the position the then premier of Alberta was in in 1935 he would have given exactly the same consideration to the fundamental rights of Alberta citizens that the then premier of that province gave. There are rights of bondholders, it is true, and rights of holders of contracts, but those rights cannot be enforced completely if it means the destruction of the people who signed those contracts made in good faith. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that when a man goes before a group of people who hold contracts and says to them: The best we can do is to pay one-half of the interest rate-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order, not to take issue with the hon. gentleman, but I am sure he will appreciate that this bill has been under discussion for a long time and that every hon. member has had a full and complete opportunity to discuss it. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he is clearly out of order now and I would ask him with great respect kindly to confine himself to the amendment. I am sure he will appreciate that, as the minister conducting the bill, I am anxious to have it passed as quickly as possible without eliminating any necessary discussion, but the matter he is now discussing is clearly not relevant to the amendment.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I understand that, and I shall respect the minister's request, but if I am to keep my seat and not be able to answer the minister I ask respectfully that the Minister of Veterans Affairs withdraw his statement and have it expunged from the record.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be most happy to withdraw it.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: The Minister of Veterans Affairs started off with a vision which by the end of his address became almost a fact. May I ask whether his suggestion is an indication of what government policy may be with respect to a bill of rights, or was it just his own hope?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to discuss it with the members of the government. It would be my wish to have this done as I said. I had a moment's consultation with my colleague to my left and he agrees with what I said.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived.
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 16-On acquisition of other nationality.	[DOT]


John Thomas Hackett: On this section I wish to ask the minister a question or two which possibly might have been asked when sections 9 and 10 were under discussion. It appears from section 16, if I grasp its purport, that a Canadian woman may in certain circumstances renounce her nationality. I wish to ask the minister if the bill before the committee confers Canadian citizenship upon an alien woman who marries a Canadian citizen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


John Thomas Hackett: And does a Canadian national woman who marries an alien man by the fact of marriage become an alien?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; she certainly does not lose her Canadian nationality by the fact of marriage alone.


John Thomas Hackett: That is a departure from the rule which has obtained in Canada and still obtains at the present moment, is it not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In other words, under this bill women are given the right to control their own status. That is a very progressive step.


John Thomas Hackett: A very progressive step? Will the minister say for the information of the committee if there is any other place in the British commonwealth of nations where a similar rule obtains?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the conference of the Hague in 1930, where these matters were discussed and where commonwealth countries among others were represented, the general conclusion of that important gathering was that this was one of the steps that should be
Canadian Citizenship

made. Legislation,, or a provision in this particular, now exists in the United States and one or two other countries.


John Thomas Hackett: I am aware that the United States some few years ago departed from the rule of domicile; but my question was, is there any dominion, is there any country in the British commonwealth of nations in which the rule which appears to be embedded in the bill now before the committee is in force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the first place I do not think this arises under section 16. I do not want to prolong discussion of a matter that is already dealt with. I think my hon. friend will find that about two years ago Australia made a move not completely along this line but somewhat along this line.


John Thomas Hackett: It is my information that nowhere else in the British commonwealth of nations, nowhere else in the area that was known as the British empire, has there been any departure from a rule which has obtained-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. We have already dealt with the section which deals with the separate status of women; we are now dealing with another section altogether, and I think I must ask you to keep the discussion to this particular section.


John Thomas Hackett: I hope the minister is not going to attempt to be technical in discussing a matter which is one of the most important in the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I must rise to the point of order again. It is not what I want; it is what the rules of the house provide. Surely under this section the hon. gentleman is not in order in discussiong the status of women. We have passed that section. There will be an opportunity later for the hon. gentleman to make his references on that point, but we are now dealing with loss of Canadian citizenship, which has nothing to do with the separate status of women. I submit that the hon. gentleman is not in order.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. - Chairman, I hope that it will not be necessary to go into a long argument on whether or not I am in order. I would draw to the attention of the minister that a cursory reading of section 16 shows that the very question which I am discussing is the status of women arising out of marriage; and even were I a little bit on the margin I do not think the minister would wish to be over-technical in discussing a matter of this importance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I have your ruling I do not want to be over-technical; but we have had a lot of discussion of this matter-


John Thomas Hackett: Then-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just complete it? Consequently, as the minister conducting the bill, I have no other position to take than to ask that we discuss this particular section. We dealt with this matter, and the hon. gentleman on another occasion will have his chance. But on this section he is out of order, and, Mr. Chairman, I would ask your ruling.


John Thomas Hackett: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say a word on the point of order. I am talking about, or attempting to discuss the status of women resulting from marriage. I shall now read section 16:
A Canadian citizen who .when outside of Canada and not under a disability, by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.
The point is that in certain circumstances a Canadian woman, by a voluntary act other than marriage, may yield up her Canadian citizenship. I am debating and hope to be permitted to debate the issue which arises from her marriage to an alien, and I submit with great deference that, it requires very slight imagination to see that I am speaking of something which is entirely relevant.


William Ross Macdonald: In committee, of course, considerable latitude is given with respect to a matter that arises in a section. There is a reference here to marriage, although there is no mention either of men or women; therefore it would appear to relate to either men or women. I would ask the hon. member to make his remarks relevant to section 16, upon which the note is, "on acquisition of other nationality."


John Thomas Hackett: I shall endeavour to keep within the limits of your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, but my effort at the moment is to discuss the effect of marriage in its application to citizenship as stated in section 16. I hope that the minister, who has given a great deal of time to the study of this bill and who possesses a great deal of information cencern-ing it, will be good enough to tell the committee why an age-old rule, based upon the integrity of the home-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I must again ask you to request the hon. member to deal with this particular section. We have dealt with the disability sections in so far as they

Canadian Citizenship
apply to women; we have passed those sections; now we are on a matter which merely has to do with the acquisition of nationality or citizenship by any voluntary act other than marriage. It specifically excludes the question of marriage. To discuss the status of women under this section w'ould certainly stretch the meaning of relevancy to a point which I do not feel, conforming to my responsibility under the rules of this house, I can possibly accede to.


John Thomas Hackett: If the hon. gentleman, would endeavour to stretch his sense of responsibility to the house to the extent of observing the ruling of the Chairman, he would give a much better example to the house than by attempting to evade a question with respect to a departure from a fundamental rule of citizenship that has obtained for centuries.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have given my ruling and I think it is clear. There is in the section a reference to marriage and the hon. member may wish to strike out the words regarding marriage. I do not know what his intention is, but I believe my ruling was clear and I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to a discussion within the four corners of the section.


John Thomas Hackett: I would be grateful
indeed if the hon. gentleman would enlighten the committee as to the reason for departing from the rule that has obtained for centuries in all British countries and which is still the rule in Canada, a rule that is set forth in section 13 of the Naturalization Act, which declares that the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien. If section 16 be enacted it will be a complete departure from the rule that is set forth in the statute and included in the statute which amended section 13, which was passed in 1931. It would be most enlightening to the committee if the hon. gentleman would give us the reasons for this radical departure. I would be grateful to him if he would give an explanation of some length.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said, dealing with the relevant sections and in my statement in chief, we felt in framing the bill that we should treat women as persons and give them the right to have their own nationality just as well as men. I am sure the sole woman member of this house will agree to that.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the section carry?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: May I ask the hon. member for Stanstead a question?


John Thomas Hackett: Certainly.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Do you mean to say that you are opposing that?


John Thomas Hackett: I am sorry that the hon. member has been absent from the house. It was my endeavour to oppose it and I shall be happy to set forth the reasons upon which that opposition rests.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Kindly do it on the relevant section.


John Thomas Hackett: There must be a little confusion in the minister's mind as to what constitutes relevancy, and this confusion seems to be a little more marked when he finds the answer to a question embarrassing. Let us consider for a moment why I am asking these questions. I am one of those who believe in the integrity of the home. Marriage brings about a union which' is the foundation of the home. There are many influences-more to-day possibly than there used to be-which appear to be undermining the integrity of the home. I am one of those who believe that when a man and a woman marry they set up a partnership, a union in which there should be complete harmony and understanding, and the elimination, in so far as possible, of everything that may disturb that union. However, I should be very glad if the minister would say what is the reason for departing from a rule which has obtained from the very genesis of the existence of separate states. I recall that in Roman law the bride said: "And your people.shall become my people and your gods my gods". The minister must remember the old French adage, "qui prend mari prend pays". She who takes a husband assumes his nationality and becomes a citizen of his country. But I am interested in knowing the reason for the departure. Has anybody asked for it? If so, who?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Having taken the position I did as to the relevancy of the hon. gentleman's point, I hesitate to give a reply in view of the ruling of the Chair. The hon. member was not in the house when we discussed the disability sections of the bill. He asks what made us do it. I am afraid

and I say this with great respect to him-that if there is anything that distinguishes his group from those on this side it is the inability to realize that women who rear children, women to whom he did pay tribute to-night, in this day and age are persons just as well as the sex to which he and I belong. If they are entitled to own property, to sit in parliament; if they are entitled to be designated persons by the judicial committee and to take their place in the upper chamber, then surely this house will
Canadian Citizenship

support the government in declaring that women have the right to separate national status.


William Ross Macdonald: I have given the hon. member for Stanstead wide latitude, as I believe all hon. members will agree, but I do not think we should revert to the general question of disability.


John Thomas Hackett: May it please the Chair-


William Ross Macdonald: I would ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks, with respect to disability, to the meaning within section 16.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like to know if the minister is aware that in the United States, for instance, the estates duty-succession duty as we call it here-is imposed upon the estates of citizens of the United States, and that if this section and other sections which are cast in the same spirit are finally passed and became law, the estate of an American woman, a citizen of the United States, married to a Canadian citizen and retaining her nationality, would be subject to taxation in the United States. Her estate would be taxable in the United States because she is a citizen of the United States. Her estate would be taxable in Canada because she would be domiciled in Camada, and the result would be that her estate would 'be liable to double taxation. Would the minister advise the committee-


Mr. ABBOTT:: Could we not discuss this question on the budget?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Is the hon. member worried about the double taxation or about the sanctity of the home?


William Ross Macdonald: Does section 16 carry?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to ask a question.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the minister be good enough to answer my question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It certainly has nothing to do with this section.


John Thomas Hackett: It has a great deal to do with it. If a lady who is a citizen of the United States marries a Canadian citizen who is a man and she retains her citizenship, her estate at her death is liable to taxation in the United States where, under their estate tax, taxation rests upon citizenship. In Canada our inheritance tax rests upon domicile. I am asking the minister whether he will be good enough to inform the committee if he 
has examined that phase of the situation which will result from the enactment of the bill which is before the committee?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have listened carefully to the question of the hon. member for Stanstead. I would draw his attention to the fact that this section is related to disabilities other than marriage, and consequently his question is out of order.


John Thomas Hackett: May I speak to the point of order?


William Ross Macdonald: No; I have given my ruling.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes, but you have not allowed me the privilege of speaking to the point of order. I would respectfully ask that I be permitted-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have given my ruling. I have ruled that the question of the hon. member is out of order. The hon. member for Calgary West has the floor.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like to speak to the point of order.


William Ross Macdonald: There is no point of order before the committee.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to ask the minister a question. I do so very humbly. I say that for this reason: I have endeavoured to attend this long drawn-out discussion. Any discussion that I have missed I have read in the record of our proceedings.
I do not want to be told that it was covered two or three weeks ago because my memory does not extend back that far.
Would the minister enlighten us on his views as to this whole question of dual nationality? To my mind it is a-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 17 deals with dual nationality.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Am I in the wrong comer? With respect, Ml. Chairman, my submission is that we are dealing with a section which gives dual nationality to a woman; therefore a question with respect to dual nationality clearly comes under section 16.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 17 deals with that question. I shall be glad to deal with it when we come to that particular section.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With great respect may I say to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that section 16 deals with dual nationality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out that section 16 deals with the acquisition of nationality through voluntary acts other than marriage.

Canadian Citizenship


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, but the wholes-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The whole question of dual nationality is covered by section 17, which we still have to pass. It is one of the remaining sections that we allowed to stand.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am saving the minister a lot of time. If I ask the question now he will not have to bother with it when we come to section 17. Obviously dual nationality is covered in section 16. That is what we are dealing with. The minister is saying that it does not exist under one condition. However, I shall be very happy to wait.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Except that I have certain engagements later on.


John Thomas Hackett: I should like to point out to the minister that ladies are persons; that Canadian citizens who are females are persons, and the fact that they have rights is hardly an answer to the point that has been raised here. The.point is whether a home that results from a marriage is to be divided, and whether there is anything that has overtaken us in the last year or two which makes it desirable that there should be two nationalities in the home?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I call your attention to your ruling and I am sure the hon. gentleman will observe it.


John Thomas Hackett: I say with great respect-


William Ross Macdonald: I have given my ruling.


William Irvine: Tell him again.


William Ross Macdonald: I do not think I need to repeat it. I hope the hon. member for Stan-stead will respect it.


Thomas Reid: When this section was up before the committee the last time, some of us were asking the minister certain questions, and it was held over for further consideration. I am going to move an amendment to section 16, to take care of the matters which were discussed when the bill was before the committee, and to which no answer was given to the questions asked of the minister. My amendment will delete four words from lines 16 and 17. If hon. members will look at lines 16 and 17 of section 16 they will see that the four words I am asking to delete are as follows : "when outside of Canada". The section would then read:
A Canadian citizen who, and not under a disability, by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.
That will take care of the matter. This amendment would cover all those both inside and outside Canada.


Mr. GREEN:: That was one of the points I meant to suggest to the minister in connection with this section. It would repay members of the committee to read this section carefully because it is an important one. I have detected a tendency, or what I thought was a tendency, on the part of the minister, not to pay much attention to the loss of citizenship, but rather to spread the cloak of citizenship over as many people as possible. It is not quite that simple. We must give careful consideration to the loss of citizenship. There are certain people who are not entitled to have Canadian citizenship, and this committee should bear that fact in mind. The section reads:
A Canadian citizen who, when outside of Canada and not under a disability, by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.
The provision is that he must do some voluntary and formal act other than marriage. By acquiring the nationality of another country he then will lose his Canadian citizenship. But he can do that only if he is outside Canada; in other words, if he does that act within Canada he cannot be deprived of his citizenship. I think the amendment of the hon. member for New Westminster meets this last situation, and is therefore very much to the point. But I suggest to the minister that some provision should be made in this section by which the man who serves in a hostile force loses his Canadian citizenship. The other evening I instanced the Canadian-born Japanese-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall have an amendment along that line for section 17.


Howard Charles Green: I agree there should be such an amendment to section 17, but why is it not put in section 16 also?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall explain shortly.


Howard Charles Green: If a Canadian-born Japanese served in the forces of Japan, and there were instances of that, then he should be deprived of his Canadian citizenship, and I suggest that section 16 should be amended accordingly. Another reason why a man in Canada should be deprived of citizenship if he does an act by which he acquires the citizenship of another country is that actions of that sort have already been taken in Canada. Take the case of the citizen of another country who appears before his consul in Canada and does an act that substantiates his citizenship in that other
Canadian Citizenship

country. There is no reason why he should also retain his Canadian citizenship.. Last November in Vancouver one of the Russian officials from Ottawa took applications from former residents of Russia. I have here a newspaper clipping-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He was not renouncing
citizenship in that case, was he?


Howard Charles Green: Here is a picture of the Russian official and the applicant appearing before him. Underneath we find this caption:
Becoming U.S.S.R. citizens-Fifty B.C. residents a day are registering for Soviet citizenship at the Marine building offices of the commercial counsellor to the embassy of the U.S.S.R. in Canada. They are former citizens of the western regions of the Ukrainian and Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republics who have not taken out Canadian citizenship. V. G. Pavlov, representative of the consular division of the embassy, is seen above registering a former Polish citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were not citizens.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently they had been residents of Russia at one time. But before Japan struck she took a census of the Japanese in Canada, and Japanese residents here complied with the census regulations of that country. From time to time actions of that kind are taken by people who are nationals of other countries. I submit to the minister that when they do such things they should lose their Canadian citizenship, and I suggest that he should consider adding the words "or acknowledges" after the word "acquires" so that the section would read "by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires or acknowledges the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada." The act done by that person may not be sufficient to make him a citizen of the other country, but his intention .may have been to become a citizen of that country. In other words, if he acknowledges another nationality or another citizenship, then there is no reason why he should retain Canadian citizenship. As the section now reads, it is too restricted. Persons will lose Canadian citizenship only when they actually acquire another citizenship, and I am suggesting that where they acknowledge another citizenship, though in fact they may not have acquired it, they should lose Canadian citizenship.
My final suggestion is that a provision should be added to this section to the effect, that making a declaration renouncing Canadian citizenship is sufficient to make that declarant lose his citizenship. The government has already followed this procedure in connection with the Japanese requesting

repatriation. It obtained from them a renunciation of citizenship. I have here a copy of the renunciation, which reads as follows:
I,	(	), born	
registered as a Canadian-born British subject
(J. R. No	) under order in council
P.C. 9760, dated December 16, 1941, hereby declare my desire to relinquish my British nationality and to assume the status of a national of Japan.
Further, I request the government of Canada, under the conditions set out in the statement of the Minister of Labour dated February 13, 1945, to arrange for and effect my repatriation to Japan.
I declare that I fully understand the contents of this document, and I voluntarily affix my signature hereto.
A similar declaration was signed by Japanese who had been naturalized in Canada, except that in their cases the words were "Canadian naturalized British subject" rather than "Canadian-born British subject." There was an instance in which the government actually obtained a renunciation, and I suggest that section 16 should contain power to take such renunciations. There is a similar provision in the Canadian Nationals Act, which is chapter 21 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. In section 3 the minister will find provision for a certain type of citizen making a declaration renouncing his Canadian nationality if he is of full age and not under disability. I do not understand why no provision has been made in section 16 of this bill for a renunciation of nationality. So that I would suggest to the minister that in addition to the amendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster he give consideration to adding the words "or acknowledges" after the word "acquires" and adding after the word "Canada" in the second last line of the section the words "or makes a declaration renouncing his Canadian citizenship," and also that he deal with the case of the man who served in a hostile force.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I say first will apply to the observations of the hon. member who moved the amendment and to those of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. The section seeks to deal with a class of Canadian citizens who, when outside the country, by a voluntary act other than marriage acquires the nationality or citizenship of another country. That is the main, broad intent of the section. If we were to accept the suggestion and add the words "or acknowledges" the mere acknowledgment would not give to the person making it the nationality of the other country.


Howard Charles Green: Of course that is his concern.

Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact is that it does not. What we are seeking to do-and this is altogether part from my comments on the proposed	amendment-is	to avoid
statelessness. The hon. gentleman has given this matter a great deal of thought, and he knows that at the 1930 conference at which all commonwealth and other countries were represented one of the understandings-it was not a commitment nor was it an agreement; this was a general conference attended by representatives of the government representing the party of my hon. friend-there was a general understanding that there should be promoted greater uniformity in the nationality laws of the countries represented at that conference.


Thomas Reid: The minister has on many occasions referred to stateless persons. Supposing the government had proof that a man living in this country had two citizenships and one was taken away, how would he be stateless?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is why I said I was speaking apart from the amendment. If the hon. member will permit me, I shall come to that in a minute. The hon. gentleman was kind enough to mention this matter privately to me. We have considered it carefully. The mere acknowledgment would not give him the nationality of another country, but the amendment does raise an important point, one which regretfully I cannot accept. The section itself deals with persons who are outside Canada, persons who are not within the reach of the constituted authorities of this country. The section as it now stands is substantially that of the present Naturalization Act and contains substantially the same wording as will be found in all the naturalization laws throughout the dominion. I should like to call the attention of the committee to Dicey on "Conflict of Laws", fourth edition, which contains the following comment:
A person not under disability may, when in a foreign state, become naturalized there by any voluntary and formal act, which achieves this end according to the law of such state, e.g., by becoming naturalized in the United States. But remark that he cannot, do this unless he is within the foreign state. This rule, apparently, would render ineffective the naturalization in France of any Englishman being still in the British dominions by the vote of the Fren legislature, such as the votes by which French national assembles have on several occasions naturalized foreigners as French citizens who were not at the time in France. It appears also to be necessary that the person naturalized in the foreign state should take some part in the naturalization which proves his voluntary assent to it. Of course, the neglect of either of these conditions, would not render the vote of a French legislature turning a British subject into
63260-94	'
a French subject invalid in France, but it would prevent such vote from rendering the person so naturalized an alien in the United Kingdom.
It is, I submit, fundamental that no state in the world affords its citizens residing in that state facilities for becoming naturalized in another state. In other words, the responsibilities of a Canadian citizen cannot be thrown off at will or caprice by a Canadian who still resides in Canada. Take a concrete instance. Canada was at war with Germany from September 10, 1939, but did not declare war on Roumania until December, 1941. I am taking this example not to make any invidious comparison but simply to show that if we were to accept an amendment like this it would create abuses which I am sure on reflection it will be found had not been borne in mind.


John Thomas Hackett: That is subject to
exception.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said, Canada was at war with Germany from September 10, 1939, but did not declare war on Roumania until December, 1941. During a considerable period of this time it was notorious that Roumania was under effective enemy control and influence, although technically neutral. Could this country have tolerated any of her citizens who might be disaffected in relation to the war acquiring, through connivance with the Roumanian government, naturalization as Roumanian citizens? The whole tenor of the discussion thus far has been to emphasize that if Canadian citizens are disloyal or disaffected they should be punished by Canadian authority; in other words, that we should clean our own house. We cannot have in Canada, any more than they can have in any other country of the commonwealth where there are similar provisions, groups of citizens who acquire within Canada the nationality of a foreign country.
I appreciate that the hon. gentleman is addressing himself to another situation, but if we were to accept this amendment it would mean that any group of citizens could at a particular moment denationalize themselves by some act in connivance with a foreign power. No country in the world can afford to allow citizens within its borders to denationalize themselves. While I appreciate the purpose of the amendment, I cannot accept it because of the great abuses which it would provoke, even though unintentionally.


Howard Charles Green: In the very next section the minister provides for just that which he now says should not be done, that is, for a person in Canada to renounce his Canadian citizenship.	,



Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: That section deals with dual nationality, and I shall have an observation to make on that later on. Section 16 simply deals with the citizen outside Canada who,' by some voluntary act, acquires the nationality of another country. The suggestion is that we should extend that to people within Canada and I say that I cannot agree to that.


Howard Charles Green: Section 17 provides that when a person born in Canada becomes of age he can renounce his Canadian citizenship. What is the difference between that and the man who is a citizen of Russia and Canada, living in Canada and who, being over age, renounces his citizenship?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 17 deals with the dual nationality of persons-section 16 deals with the simple question I have mentioned, that of the person who, outside Canada, seeks by a voluntary act to acquire the nationality of another country.


Thomas Reid: The majority of people in British Columbia are a little perturbed regarding the status of 1,600 people who were born and educated in that province. Of course they would not come under section 16 because they were citizens of this country before they left it. I am not sure whether the minister is aware of the Japanese law which I believe is still in effect. I am speaking from memory, but up until 1922 the births of children of Japanese citizens born in this country had to be registered within forty-eight hours. They were compelled to register those births or they ceased to be Japanese citizens. There was such an outcry by people in British Columbia and elsewhere over this that the Japs, in that cute way they have, changed the law so that on the surface it seemed to mean something else when in reality it meant the same thing.
Supposedly the new law did not impose compulsion, but every Japanese family that I knew of regsitered their children with the Japanese consul. When these people appeared before the committee of this house which sat in 1935 and again in 1936 they were asked to which country they owed allegiance. This was long before there was any question of racial hatred or thought of war. They said without hesitation that they were citizens of Japan.
I am receiving requests to get an explanation from the minister as to what will be the status of up to 1,600 Japanese who left British Columbia, before 1940 went to Japan for military purposes and later fought against Canada and are still in Japan. These Japanese were bom in British Columbia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall deal with that on section 16. I may say that it has not been possible to ascertain that there is any such number. We have been in contact with other countries, but to the extent that there may be a certain number, we shall deal with them by an amendment I am going to offer to section 17 when we reach it. The reasons I have given I trust will convince the committee of the desirability of not accepting the amendment. When we come to section 17 we shall deal with persons who have served in a war against Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be wise to provide also in section 16 that the adult, who has Canadian citizenship and serves in a hostile force shall lose that Canadian citizenship?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to put it in the appropriate section, but not in this section which deals -with another matter.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I wish to raise a question that has not been raised before on section 16. I refer to the families of Canadians born and raised in South America. There are a great number of Canadian families who are normally resident in South America, particularly in Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, the Argentine and other South American republics. The heads of these families are engineers, technicians, and so forth, but some are business men carrying on normal business practices. They have raised and are now raising their families in South America. They have to many outward signs a dual nationality in that they live and earn their livelihood in South Amercia. Nevertheless, they consider themselves and are by nationality Canadian citizens, and they travel under what is known as a British passport.
There is in many of these South American countries a compulsory service law which compels young men of the age of eighteen to undergo a period of perhaps a year and sometimes longer of military training. The period varies with the different republics. The young man may elect to do one of two things. He may elect to leave the country in which he is resident and return to Canada or, particularly if he is going to school in one of the South American republics-and may I say that some of their schools are excellent in teaching both English and the language of the country-he may elect to undergo that year of military service. Under this section that would be a voluntary act. If he joins the armed forces of any of the South American republics he is considered by that republic to be a national of the republic. But under this section it would be a voluntary act because he could have elected to leave the republic and return to

Canadian Citizenship
Canada. In Brazil there are many hundreds of Canadian families, and it is most inconvenient for their children when they reach the military age to leave the republic and return to Canada. I suggest that this section will be a serious deterrent or, shall I say, put a crimp in quite a number of these families, who will have to be separated in order to retain their Canadian citizenship. I understand that there was a treaty between the United Kingdom and many of the South American republics-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are these people South American born?


Agar Rodney Adamson: They can be either.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is an important question. Are they Canadian-born or South American-born?


Agar Rodney Adamson: According to the South American law it does not matter if they have resided there for five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If they are Canadian-born we can deal with them. If they are South American-born, that is a different question altogether.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Let us assume that they are Canadian-born. If they have lived in Brazil for a period of five years the republic of Brazil considers that they are liable to their draft law, or they did; I do not know what the law is at present. But I lived there myself and I know this question came up. After the young men had lived there for five years, on attaining the age of eighteen, they were faced with two choices.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is my hon. friend speaking of minors?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are not affected by this section.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, they are, because it says that if he acquires the nationality of citizenship of a country other than Canada he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are in the disabled class.


Agar Rodney Adamson: They are considered to be citizens of the South American republic at the age of eighteen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But not by us.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is what I want to find out. Then undoubtedly they have a dual nationality between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one because they are considered as being nationals of the South American repub-63260- 94i
lie in which they reside. Presumably they would have to make a declaration after they are twenty-one years of age to say that they wish to become Canadian citizens.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then we deal with them under section 17.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Section 16 deals with them, too, because they have presumably voluntarily made this choice when they become a member of the armed forces of one of the South American republics, and under the South American laws they are considered to be be nationals of that country. Therefore, between those years they have a dual nationality. I admit that the second part of my argument comes under section 17. They would have to renounce South American nationality and become Canadians once again, as it were. It is a serious question. Many young Americans were called to the colours in the South American countries, while Canadians, because of a treaty made between Great Britain and most of these republics, were exempt. I suggest that this section will put Canadians in the same status as Americans and make them liable for service to which they were not liable until the passing of-this bill.


Angus MacInnis: May I ask the hon. member for York West if his contention is that we have dual Canadian citizenship, in that Canadian citizens residing in South America are citizens of, say Brazil, and also citizens of Canada? I know that applies in the case of Great Britain, but I was not aware that Canada had sunk to that terribly low position which we have been hearing about now for three weeks, in that Canadians were guilty of this crime of dual citizenship. I hope not.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I thought we were.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. FULTON:: Could the minister clear up this point so that it will not have to be raised when we come to section 17: what is the position at law of those Japanese either who have not become naturalized in Canada or whose children have been born in Canada and whose birth certificates are registered with the Japanese consul? I feel it is important to know that so that we shall know whether we are changing their status when this bill becomes law. What is that status under Canadian law now? Do we regard them as Japanese nationals or Canadian citizens, or under our law are they only Canadian nationals?
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was following the hon. member, but I should like to consider the question carefully before I answer. They are dual nationals.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Our laws recognize that they have Japanese nationality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say they are dual
nationals. It is not a question of recognition, it is a question of fact.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder whether the minister would not consider that there is a good deal of force in the amendment suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster, because the point of some of us, anyway, who have been concerned with this question is that under our law as it stands at present these Japanese are Japanese nationals.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to deal with that when I come to section 17. I cannot accept the amendment for the reasons I have mentioned. We are not going to create a special group in this country. Under the circumstances I have mentioned it would create a serious situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder whether the minister could anticipate a little further and say whether under section 17 he intends to make it possible or to allow it to be possible for these people to be regarded as a separate group, which they now are under our law, or if he is going to change our law for them to become, as they have not been up to the present, Canadian citizens.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I intend later to deal with people who served in the armed forces of another country with which Canada is at war.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate that, but my point was more general; at least that was the intention of my question. I was asking about those whose births have been registered with the Japanese consul and those who are not registered as Canadian citizens.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have dealt with that in a general way; but I think we should wait until we come to section 17.
Amendment (Mr. Reid) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-By renunciation where dual nationality.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Before we discuss that I wish to give notice of an amendment, which I am asking my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs to move:
To amend clause 17 by adding thereto as subsection (2) the following:
(2) "Where a Canadian citizen who is under the law of any other country a national or a citizen of that country serves in the armed

forces of such country when it is at war with Canada, he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


William Ross Macdonald: The amendment will necessitate making the original section 17 subsection 1. Does section 17 as amended by subsection 1 carry?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am coming back to where I stood up a little while ago, and I hope that this time I get the right ball in the right pocket. I do not know whether hon. members play that game or not. What I am anxious to have the Secretary of State do is-and if my memory serves me aright he has not yet done it-to give us his, and therefore the government's view, on this whole question of dual nationality. I realize that in times gone by such a thing has existed. My humble opinion is that it is a complete contradiction in terms. In other words, we have heard recently where a certain person avowed a higher duty or morality or something of that sort to a country other than Canada. Or let us take those, of whom we have quite a number, that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle spoke about a moment ago. There are United States women who have married Canadian husbands. Many of them are now living in Nassau to avoid taxation and that sort of thing; they go freely between California and Canada, and the only way, as I understand it, that they can lose that United States citizenship is if they vote in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is one of the ways.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is the main way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; there are others.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I say that is the main way; but we, being opposed in politics, watch that they do not vote, so that it really does not happen very often.


Angus MacInnis: Maybe they vote on the wrong side.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have found that out, and I am glad the hon. member supports me in that respect. This is the only time he and I have seen eye-to-eye since I met him, and in spite of that I still like him. Here is my thought: we have all been making speeches as to what an important bill this is, that it is going to give us a status and a standing. I am all for it, and I agree with all that. But as a matter of common sense, is it possible for any person to have two loyalties? Is it possible for any person to take the oath of allegiance to the'

Canadian Citizenship
king and at the same time take the oath of allegiance to the ruling person, or whatever it may be, in another country? It is all very well to say that many of us have not taken the oath of allegiance. I never did until I came to the parliament of Canada. I spoke of being Canadian-born; that is so; nevertheless the same loyalties are required of me, and the same laws apply to me, I mean, with respect to treason, official secrets and acts of that description. Therefore I should like from the Secretary of State his view as to what is the position of a person having dual citizenship. Nationality is the wrong word; it is citizenship. That is what they have. In my judgment it is a complete contradiction in terms and it is just not possible. Let us assume that the woman is a person, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle so ably reminded us a moment ago. Indeed, her presence would put the question out of debate, and the hon. member is quite a person at that. Will the minister please tell me how a person can be a citizen in two countries having regard to the loyalty to a country which citizenship involves?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is actually no difference at all between the hon. gentleman and myself. What we have tried to do, in so far as that is possible, is to avoid as many occasions of dual nationality as we can. Of course, the hon. gentleman is correct; one cannot be really loyal to two countries, particularly when they have opposite currents of political thought, different ideologies and the like. No one quarrels with the hon. gentleman's statement, and all this bill does is to minimize, in comparison with the existing law, the occasions of dual nationality. One of the reasons for the Hague conference of 1930, to which I have made several references, was by agreement to try to get countries to pass laws of nationality which would minimize occasions of dual nationality. It is possible under the existing law in some countries to-day for a person to have no fewer than eleven nationalities. As hon. gentlemen know, before the war, by countries who were our allies and by some who were not, persons who came to this and other countries did not lose the . nationality of these other countries. I do not want to mention specific countries. I have not in mind at the moment the far eastern countries but some European nations. Nationality is' acquired by most countries either through jus soli, the law of the place, or jus sanguinis, the law of blood relationship, or a combination of these two. All that countries can hope to do in the framing of their
nationality laws is to create a situation which will avoid so far as it is possible dual or more than double nationality.
Lawyers in the house will recall the case of an individual born in a zeppelin travelling over the territory of the United States, the father a German and the mother an Italian, creating a situation where that child under the laws of four different countries was a national of as many countries. These are situations that can be cured only by common agreement among the nations. I cannot add anything more. I fully agree with everything the hon. gentleman has said, and we are doing in this bill all we can to minimize occasions of dual nationality.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I did not intend to speak at all, because I did not think it would require a lot of flowery language to give women the status of human beings, and it seemed to me that the minister was only doing what any decent, self-respecting nation would do sometime in its history, so that it did not require comment. However, for the sake of the hon. gentleman who some time ago wanted to defend the sanctity of the home, I may say that it was called to my attention twenty years ago at a homemakers convention that we had a number of Canadian women who, through marriage had lost their Canadian nationality. They had married aliens and in some cases those aliens were deported because of some criminal offence. Here we had a Canadian woman being deported because her husband was being interned as a criminal in Italy, say, and she knew nothing of Italian, shared no Italian customs or attitudes, and went there as the wife of a criminal. It made her position extremely difficult indeed. I may say for the benefit of the hon. gentleman that women's institutes and councils and organizations, for at least twenty years-because I have been associated with them for twenty years-have tried to establish this simple fact of the integrity of the woman as an individual apart from her husband. We have many cases of United States men coming to this country and living here for many years, enjoying everything but the right to vote, and in spite of such a man's marriage to a Canadian, it has never altered an American's status as a citizen of the republic to the south. I take it that the passing of this bill rescues women from the position to which marriage had degraded them. That is to say, through marriage the woman sank to the level of an imbecile or a dependent. Is that correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a fact that under the
old act there were certain classes of disabled persons-idiots, imbeciles, minoi's and women. We have taken women out of that group.
Canadian Citizenship


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you not include judges?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Instead of protecting the sanctity of the home, marriage was degrading it. In other words, the effect of the law was to degrade woman by putting her down to the level of the same status as an imbecile or an incompetent or a minor. The passage of this bill merely restores human rights and allows a woman to choose whether or not she will take the citizenship of her husband, and that, it seems to me, should be a matter between husband and wife. I am all for the sanctity of the home, but not for the sake of taxes-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have ruled out of order any references to taxes. This bill has nothing to do with that question.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am sorry. I do not think the sanctity of the home can be maintained by degrading one of the partners to the contract.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member allow me to interrupt her. It was only her charm that prevented my rising earlier to object on the ground that she was out of order.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I apologize if I am out of order, and I do not wish any considerations of "charm" to weigh in my favour. I wish to be democratic.


Mr. FLEMING:: I take it that the purpose of the amendment which has been introduced is to get at the natural-born Canadian citizen who happens to have another nationality and serves in the armed forces of that nation at a time when that nation is at war with Canada. I take it, in view of the provisions of section 21 (1) (e), it would not be necessary to have such a provision to take care of a naturalized Canadian citizen. Am I right in that assumption?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, quite. The section deals with natural-born Canadian citizens.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amendment, therefore, is designed to make a similar provision in the case of a natural-born Canadian citizen. Would it not be logical to apply the principle of the minister's amendment to the case of a person serving in the armed forces of any country at war with' Canada? Let us take an illustration. Suppose the minister has in mind the case of a natural-born Canadian citizen who, under the law of Japan, because of Japanese origin, is also a subject of the Japanese emperor. Suppose that instead of fighting in the armies of the Japanese emperor he served in a nazi U-boat. Why should he not be under a disability in that case? Why

should he not' lose his Canadian citizenship just as much as if he served in the forces of the Japanese emperor?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This deals with a situation that is quite clear; it deals with a man who serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not want to belabour the point; it is a simple one. The amendment confines the situation to where a man has served in the armed forces of the other nation which recognizes him as one of its nationals.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But another nation. The use of the word "such" im the fourth line of the amendment would confine that case to service in the armies of the Japanese emperor. My suggestion is that it be broadened to include any other country which is at war with Canada at the same time. That is in keeping with the principle of the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We think this is the proper way to deal with it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister not prepared to take account of the other situation where some person of Japanese origin may be serving in the German armies or in the armies of other nations at war with Canada? Why confine it to the one case where he is serving in the armed forces of a country which looks upon him as a national?


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister given consideration to making the provision simply service in a hostile force? Under the law of the enemy country this Canadian citizen might not be a national of that country. I suggest that if he has served in a hostile force he should lose his Canadian citizenship automatically.


Thomas Reid: Some consideration should be given to that because, according to information given us during the war, a certain number of Japanese left British Columbia, went to Japan, and later went by submarine to Germany where they gave information and assistance before the capitulation. We have no idea as to the number, but the statement has been made by British and prominent Canadians that in Germany there were Japanese who had been born in British Columbia and who were assisting Germany by giving information. I think the minister might well take into consideration what has been brought out by hon. members on the other side.

Canadian Citizenship


Howard Charles Green: If that change were made the section would read:
Where a Canadian citizen serves in the armed forces of any other country when it is at war with Canada he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to accept the words:	"any other country".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not quite the same point the hon. gentleman made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is precisely the same.


Howard Charles Green: How will the section read?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will then read:
Where a Canadian citizen who is under the law of any other country a national or citizen Of that country serves in the armed forces of any other country when it is at war with Canada he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.


Howard Charles Green: Then the minister is not accepting the suggestion?


Mr. BENTLEY:: If a Canadian-born citizen who had no other disability of being called another national, but a natural-bom citizen like myself, served outside Canada in an enemy force during the war, and at some future time came back to Canada, would he not be subject to the laws of Canada and be liable to be tried for treason? If we take a person of Japanese or any other origin or nationality that we are talking about at the present time, and if that person served in. the Japanese navy or in a German U-boat and we cancelled his citizenship because of that, does it preclude the possibility of Canada taking action against him for treason or dealing with him as an enemy if he should ever return to Canada, or are we to absolve [DOT] him from that sin and simply punish him by cancelling his citizenship, or are we to use the law of extradition, bring him home and give him the punishment he deserves?


Howard Charles Green: What is the answer to my
question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are leaving out the word "other," and so it will read, "any country that is at war with Canada." The amendment that I present would then read as follows:
Where a Canadian citizen wTho is under the law of any other country a national or citizen of that country serves in the armed forces of any country when it is at war with Canada he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.


Thomas John Bentley: That does not answer my question. I should like the minister to deal with my question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 25 deals with it.
Mr. BENTLEY Will section 25 deal with it after this amendment is passed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly.


Grote Stirling: I wish the Secretary of State would explain what is meant by the inclusion of these words:
. . . who is under the law of any other country a national or citizen of that country.
It seems to me to be redundant. I do not know what the minister is aiming at in including that. Without these words, it would be a plain statement of fact as follows:
Where a Canadian citizen serves in the armed forces of another country when it is at war with Canada he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What we are dealing with here is a person who acquires our nationality, and continues to have it and acquires the nationality of another country and serves in the armed forces of that country. The person who does not acquire the nationality of the country in which he is serving is dealt with under our system and in Britain and in Australia and so on in the regular way by using the regular machinery of the courts. He can be found guilty of treason. We are dealing with the special case of a person who is a national of our own country and a national of another country and who at the same time serves in the armed fences of that country when Canada is at war with it. We are dealing with a special group.


Grote Stirling: Under this law I do not see how a Japanese who fights in the Japanese forces can be dealt with if he does not return to Canada. That person may claim in Japan that he is a Canadian citizen, and there would be no way of dealing with him if this amendment passes with this wording in it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We cannot deal with that situation. What could we do? No law would remedy that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Under this section a man like Joyce who took out German citizenship would be exempt from punishment. He was tried as a traitor. By joining some military police or something like that he was considered by the German regime as-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are not dealing with punishment; we are simply dealing with the laws of nationality.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If a man loses his nationality he cannot be tried as a traitor.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, he can, under section
25.
Canadian Citizenship


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, about a week ago or perhaps longer-we have been so long discussing this bill-I wanted to make some observations on this section but was ruled out of order on a technicality. I wish to take advantage of the opportunity to do so to-night, though I do not believe I can finish before eleven o'clock. Every time we begin to discuss this bill and hon. members from British Columbia take part in the discussion I have to turn to -the front page to assure myself -that it is called the Canadian Citizenship Act, because I believe the bill they are discussing should be entitled 4'the perpetual racial discrimination act." Let me say that I support the amendment. As a matter of fact, knowing as little law as I do, I was in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for New Westminster. In the debate on this bill we have witnessed a most curious situation concerning hon. gentlemen to my right. We had the hon. member for Lake Centre and some others attacking the government, particularly the Minister of Justice, most violently in connection with two orders in council which were passed last fall, P.C. 6577 of October 23 and P.C. 6444 of October 5, under whi^h those people caught up in the espionage affair were taken into custody. I have been thinking to myself, what can be said of the sincerity of hon. members who cry to high heaven about the iniquity of those two orders in council, yet forget altogether orders in council, P.C. 7355, 7356 and 7357 which were passed to take away the citizenship rights of not a mere half dozen or so but thousands of Canadian citizens?
. Mr. FULTON: They were not Canadian citizens.
Mr. MacINNIS-: They were.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister just said they were not, when I asked the question.


Angus MacInnis: The minister did not say anything of the kind, and in any event he can speak for himself. I am saying they were Canadian citizens, and I believe a majority of the court which tried the case said they were.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And I did not say they were not.


Angus MacInnis: I know the minister did not. That is what has gone on in this house day after day for the last three or four weeks.
rMr. Green.]


Mr. BOUCHER:: You are not helping it much now.


Angus MacInnis: I am not helping you people any.


George Russell Boucher: Nor the debate.


Angus MacInnis: Certainly I am helping the debate. I am bringing some reason and justice and clarity into it. If we are to deal with the question of citizenship let us deal with the whole question, not citizenship based on some colour or creed or race. For most hon. members from British Columbia the only citizenship worth thinking about, as far as I can ascertain, is trie citizenship of those speaking the English language. Perhaps they would accept the French language as well, because it would be bad politics to exclude it. I should really like to have time to demonstrate to this committee how the hon. member for Lake Centre pummeled the government over these orders in council I have mentioned, P.C. 6577 and 6444, and how skilfully he skated around the other orders in council that were passed, mind you, under far worse conditions than in the case of the other two he mentioned. The National Emergency Powers Act when first introduced provided in section 3(1) (g) for the revocation of naturalization and trie deportation of citizens. That section so outraged the feelings of the people of this country and of the members of this house that they would have nothing to do with it. The bill had to be withdrawn and this obnoxious section, together, with many other obnoxious sections, removed from it. Then, on the second last day of the session, the orders in council providing for the deportation of persons of Japanese origin, many of whom were Canadian citizens, were announced in this house, with not a word of opposition from my hon. friends who are so keen on maintaining the rights of citizenship.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You must have been out of the house that day. Read the speeches of the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Angus MacInnis: I have already mentioned the hon. member for Lake Centre, but he was very careful not to touch those orders I have mentioned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He did.


Angus MacInnis: Not in my hearing, in any event. But let us take the hon. member for Vancouver South. The hon. member for Lake Centre would wag his finger -and shake his head and point at the Minister of Justice and say, "What are you going to do about this?" Then the hon. member for Vancouver South

would stretch himself half-way across the floor and say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, "Are you going to carry out the government's policy in regard to the Japanese?" That government policy was put'into effect by orders in council after this house had rejected it. Either we have to be honest with ourselves, or we cannot be honest with anybody else. You can fool everybody but yourself. You cannot fool yourself; and when you are dishonest with yourself you are dishonest with everybody.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member does not mean to insinuate that I was dishonest in my stand. If he does, I ask that he withdraw.


Angus MacInnis: I am not insinuating in regard to anybody in particular. I am merely stating a fact, and anybody who feels that this statement of fact applies to him is entitled to take that position.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member has now made it perfectly clear that he is out of order, and that he must withdraw his statement. If he were referring to a party I would not care, because a party has to take abuse of that type, but here he is referring to an hon. member and I submit that he must withdraw.


William Ross Macdonald: I understood the hon. member for Vancouver East to say definitely that' he was not referring to any particular person.


Howard Charles Green: But he went on to say that if any hon. member wanted to accept it he could do so, or words to that effect. He must withdraw that statement.


Angus MacInnis: I said I made a statement of fact, and if anybody wished to apply that statement of fact to himself that was not my business.


Howard Charles Green: That is not so, I believe.


William Ross Macdonald: I do not see anything out of order in that, and I cannot ask the hon. member to withdraw.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To-morrow we shall
take up bill No. 7 at the commencement of the proceedings. After the conclusion of that measure we shall take up any second readings of the minor bills on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Privilege
Tuesday, May 14, 1946,