1946-04-30

UNITED NATIONS


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on April 21 I made a statement concerning Canada's contribution to UNRRA since its commencement. At that time the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked if I would give the house a statement showing the number of automobiles and trucks which have been apportioned to each country.
At UNRRA headquarters in Washington the needs of the various recipient countries are considered, allocations are made of goods which are most urgently required, and orders placed among the contributing countries best able to supply.
At the request of UNRRA the Canadian Export Board has purchased, with Canadian funds, 3,888 trucks at an estimated cost of $6,756,357. In addition UNRRA has purchased with free funds 7,347 trucks and 22 ambulances at a cost of $13,282,221, or a total of 11,235 trucks.
In view of the tremendous destruction of the transportation systems in Europe and China, and the need to get supplies to distressed areas immediately, UNRRA urged that trucks be shipped as quickly as possible. I understand the actual allocation made by UNRRA was as follows: China 3,761; Yugoslavia, 2,204; Poland, 1,774; Czechoslovakia, 1,471; Greece, 1,229; Albania, 234; Italy, 50; Philippines, 2. The balance of 510 have not yet been allocated. The great majority of these were of course, military type trucks.


Mr. FRASER:: Did they buy any of those from War Assets Corporation?


James Angus MacKinnon: No, I do not think so.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I
should like to ask a question in connection with UNRRA. I am not sure whether the minister has tabled information he promised before the Easter recess with respect to the contributions of the various nations under the UNRRA agreement.
' Mr. MacKINNON: I do not remember making any such promise, although I remember the hon. member's asking the question. I believe however the information is being tabled by the Department of External Affairs.
Dairy Products-Subsidies


Gordon Graydon: I should like to be clear on the point, because when the question was asked the minister did not demur, and I took it for granted that some member of the government would answer. It is an important matter, and it was my understanding the government had given its undertaking that it would be done.
Mr. MaeKINNON: I am informed the Department of External Affairs has the information in the course of preparation, and that it will be given to the house.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I believe I can promise that that will be done.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: I should like to reply to a question asked yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) respecting milk subsidies. An order in council was passed to-day making the subsidies continuous as of midnight to-night on the same basis as for the past year.


Mr. HOMUTH:: For how long?


James Garfield Gardiner: The order in council reads that it shall be for the year beginning April 1, 1946.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: The minister has referred to subsidies on milk. My question of yesterday was wider than that; it referred to dairy products. Has the government taken action with respect to other dairy products?


James Garfield Gardiner: The subsidies on dairy products are on milk. That is, there is a subsidy of so much on milk entering into cheese production, a subsidy of so much on butterfat entering into butter production, and a subsidy of so much on whole milk and canned milk, thereby covering the whole list of dairy products. It is that which has been dealt with in the order in council. It covers the whole list.


John Bracken: And the subsidies are the same as in the past.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the subsidies on production are the same as in the past.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce) moved the first reading of bill No. 30 (from the senate) to amend the act incorporating the National Council of Women of Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, the National Council of Women of Canada was incorporated in 1914, and in the past thirty-two years, by expanding its activities, has advanced the objects of that association. It now wishes to bring its act of incorporation up to date, to agree with the practices which have been invoked for some time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Marie Evelyn Dormer.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Margaret Ruth Weir Allan.'-Mr. Bducher.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. In view of the desire of Canadians for a fair and democratic trial of a Canadian member of parliament accused of a serious offence, and the desirability of the accused's having legal counsel agreeable to himself-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member is not supposed to make a statement or to give information to the house when asking a question. If he has a question it should be brief and to the point.


Thomas John Bentley: -will the minister consider setting the date of the trial at a time when Mr. D. N. Pritt, K.C., a member of parliament of Great Britain, can be present to represent the accused Canadian member of parliament?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The member of parliament referred' to in the question having been cond-mitted for trial, the attorney general for the province in which the committal took place now has full legal control of the case. All the federal minister of justice could do, if he were so inclined, would be to ask the provincial minister if he would agree to a postponement, I must say, however, that I am not disposed to interfere with the course of the proceedings before the courts. Moreover I do not feel that the presence of Mr. Pritt is necessary to

Canadian Citizenship
ensure that the accused will get a fair, or even a democratic, trial-if that is anything different from a fair trial. I understand that the accused is represented by Mr. Joseph Cohen, K.C., of Montreal, and Mr. Valmore Bien-venue, K.C., of Quebec, a former speaker of the legislative assembly of Quebec. They both came to see me some days ago about this matter. They are both eminent members of the bar of the province of Quebec. Mr. Britt might not be allowed to appear in court for the accused and no federal authority could give him that right. The practice of law before the provincial courts is something that is exclusively within provincial jurisdiction.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is he now prepared to report on the investigation into the restoration of pension rights for certain employees of the Canadian Pacific railway?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The report of the industrial relations officer has been received and has been referred for study to the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. A further announcement will be made when a reply is received.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I would remind the minister that that report was made last December. They are taking a long time.


Humphrey Mitchell: It does not matter if it was made five months ago last December; that is my answer to the question.



PARIS CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauhamois-Laprairie):: I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a report which appeared in the New York Times of April 27, referring to the Foreign Ministers' conference now being held1 in Paris. It reads as follows:
It must always.be kept in mind that Mr. Bevin in Paris is talking not only for Great Britain but for the whole British commonwealth.
Is that correct?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that I got my hon. friend's question, but I think it was
to the effect that he wished to know whether the secretary of state for foreign affairs of the United Kingdom was representing all parts of the British commonwealth at the council of foreign ministers in Paris.


Maxime Raymond: All the commonwealth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My understanding is that the secretary of state for foreign affairs of the United Kingdom is representing the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom only.



BONUS FOR SHIPMENTS OVERSEAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what progress he has made with his colleagues in connection with the thirty cent bonus on wheat for immediate delivery for shipment overseas?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not had an opportunity as yet to take this up with my colleagues.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

[Stage Direction]
NATIONALITY, NATURALIZATION AND STATUS OF ALIENS	i
The house resumed from Monday, April 29, consideration in committee of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens-Mr. Martin-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee rose last night it was considering section 3.
On section 3-Declaration of Canadian citizenship an adequate statement of national status.


Mr. DORION:: Section 3 reads:
Where, under any act of the parliament of Canada, or an order or a regulation made under such act, a person is required to state or declare his national status-
A person might be asked to declare his national status, for instance, in connection with provincial legislation. I do not think this section covers all the ground. For example, in Quebec we have legislation dealing with Canadian nationals, which will be affected by this bill. In order to cover all cases I think there should be added after the words "of Canada" in the first line the words "or of any provincial legislature." That would make the section cover all legislation regarding Canadian citizenship in all the provinces, I move an amendment accordingly.
Canadian Citizenship


Mr. MARTIN:: The amendment which the hon. gentleman is now proposing to the committee is one which I considered earlier. There is some difficulty in accepting it because ' provincial legislation coming within one of the enumerated sections of the British North America Act giving exclusive jurisdiction to the provinces is a matter which the courts might easily construe as one within the competence of this parliament. There is some point in what the hon. member has in mind, but I suggest that there is another way of meeting it. We could delete from the section as it now stands the words, "under any act of the parliament of Canada or an order or a regulation made under such act."


Frédéric Dorion: I think that would be much better.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it meets the point, and I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frédéric Dorion: There is another amendment I should like to move. The section continues:
[DOT]-any person who is a Canadian citizen under this act may state or declare himself to be a Canadian citizen-
That word of three letters "may" makes the section useless; it merely gives permission to somebody to declare himself a Canadian citizen. The word "may" is permissive; I think it should be changed to "shall". If somebody may state that he is a Canadian citizen, he may also state that he is something else. If we are to have Canadian citizenship we must have it complete. Therefore I move:
That the word "may" in the fourth line of section 3 be struck out and the word "shall" substituted therefor.


Mr. LALONDE:: I recall that this very point was discussed in the debates on conscription and the National Resources Mobilization Act. Some members objected then to the use of the word "may", but the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe made it clear that in our parliamentary language "may" does not imply a sense of latitude but rather the responsibility of obligation, exactly the same as if the word "must" were used. I have no objection to the proposed change but I have always understood that in drafting our legislation "may" has exactly the same meaning as "must".


Frédéric Dorion: I disagree with the hon. member for Labelle, and in support of my contention I quote from a well known authority, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, eighth edition, where at page 216 I find this:
Following the decision of the House of Lords in the preceding case, it was said that from the nature of the English language the word "may" can never mean "must," that it is only poten-

tial, and when it is employed there is another question to be decided, viz., whether there is anything that makes it the duty of the person on whom the power is conferred to exercise that power. If not, the exercise is discretionary. But when the power is coupled with a duty of the person to whom it is given to exercise it, then it is imperative.
Further on:
So, whenever a statute confers an authority to do a judicial act in a certain ease, it is imperative on those so authorized to exercise the authority when the case arises and its exercise is duly applied for by a party interested and having a right to make the application, and the exercise depends, not on the discretion of the courts or judges, but upon proof of the particular case out of which the power arises.
In cases in which the donee of the power has only his own interests or convenience to consult, the word "may" is plainly permissive only, and a mere privilege or licence is conferred which he may exercise or not at pleasure.
I think that gives the exact meaning of the word "may", and that is why I moved the amendment.


Mr. FLEMING:: I do not at all follow the argument of the hon. member for Labelle that "may" is the equivalent of "shall". If it were, we should need to revise half our statutes. The two words do not mean the same thing at all.
The section as it stands leaves it within the power of any Canadian citizen under the act, where under any existing statute or regulation he is required to state his national status, to say that he is a Canadian citizen or to reply in some other way. At the present time, if he were called upon to state his national status, his answer would be: I am a British subject resident in Canada. This section does not give him power to say either, "I am a Canadian citizen," or "I am a British subject resident in Canada." The purpose of the act being to give to British subjects resident in Canada the official status of a Canadian citizen, there would appear to be much merit in the proposal for amendment of this section, unless the minister can give some good reason why the change should not be made.
I offer this observation.
An amendment should also be considered with reference to the words "national status". We had a good deal of discussion last night about the desirability of introducing definitions into the act. The words "national status" are not defined. What do we mean by national status? To what is the scope of this section confined? When the national registration came into effect some four years ago every person in Canada over sixteen years of age was required to indicate his racial lineage. Had this measure been then in effect, those who were Canadian citizens

Canadian Citizenship
would have wished to answer that they were Canadian citizens. Racial lineage, after all, was something not at all germane to the purpose of the national registration at that time. It seems to me to indicate the necessity for some broadening of the provisions of the section. If we are to confine the scope of the section simply to national status in a narrow sense, we shall not give to the term "Canadian citizen" its full significance. One can think also of questions arising in connection with the census. There has been undue emphasis, it seems to me, in the questions put to residents of Canada, on racial lineage. There may be good reasons from a statistical or other point of view why racial lineage should be given as an answer to a question in connection with the census. But as this section stands it is too narrow in its scope. We are giving too narrow a significance to the term "Canadian citizen" and to the status of Canadian citizenship if we confine the section to questions of national status as applied to any individual resident in Canada. There is need for broadening the scope of the section or for introduction into the bill of some definition of national statqs which will give a more appropriate signification than ordinarily attaches to the term.


Maurice Lalonde: I have no objection to the amendment proposed, but my contention was that in our parliamentary language "may" and "must" have the same meaning. I have every respect for the opinion quoted by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, and I am sorry that I have not before me the opinions of the high legal authorities cited by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe at the time of the discussion I mentioned. But if the Secretary of State has no objection to making the change proposed, I shall not take up any more of the time of the committee.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I remember very well the discussion to which the hon. member for Labelle has referred. When private individuals are enjoined by the word "may", it is permissive but as applied to the governor in council, or a department or an official of government, whether provincial or federal, "may" is not permissive but obligatory. On the basis of Maxwell and the interpretations referred to by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, "may" is always permissive when it refers to the individual.
With regard to the matter referred to by the hon. member for Eglinton, I should like to ascertain from the minister how he defines "national status" under this section, what definition the draftsman had in mind. "Status" might be legal condition, or legal positionthese are the only definitions I can think of at the moment, but no doubt the Secretary of State will be able to give us the last word in / the interpretation of this expression. (If I understand it aright it does, not cover the situation which arises from the census. Under the census-I have the forms here-every person, regardless of the number of generations he and his forbears have been in this country, is required to set out, first, his nationality or citizenship, and second, his racial origin. The hon. member for Eglinton says he thinks that to ask for racial origin for census purposes may have some value. But I cannot see it; because according to instructions given by the appropriate officers during the last census, if a woman of French origin marries a man of English origin she thereupon ceases to register as of French origin and becomes of English origin. I have the instructions here. If we are able to change our racial origin by the simple expedient of marriage, the statistics become valueless. As a matter of fact we have carried this qfiestion of racial origin so far that, if the Duke of Windsor had been in Canada when the last census took place and had had domicile by reason of his ranch in Alberta, he would have been required to register as a German in Canada while he would be English in the United Kingdom. A person coming back to Canada, regardless of the number of generations his people have been in this country, is required to register his paternal ancestry with the immigration authorities upon entering the dominion. Most hospitals in Canada require a person, on
(entering the hospital, first' to give his citizenship and then his racial origin, as though there would be a difference in treatment according , to his racial, origin J In the United States that 'has been, done away with, except as to colour or race. Racial origin is asked for only of a person who has been naturalized. "Race" is asked for as signifying the white race or the various coloured races; otherwise no informational regard to race is required.
I If we allow this section to remain as it is, using the words "national status," the census authorities will be able to ask at the next census a question on racial origin, I suggest that, in order to clarify this matter once and for all, there be added to the words "national origin," the words "or racial origin." In other words, any person required to declare his national status or racial origin will be able to answer except so far as colour is concerned, or so far as naturalized citizens are concerned, by describing himself as "Canadian citizen".
If this amendment were accepted it would clarify the section, and the amendment of the
Canadian Citizenship

hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay would make it mandatory for Canadians to register as Canadians.	_ -


William Ross Macdonald: There is already one amendment before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not offered an amendment; I have just suggested the acceptance of this proposal.
The CHAIRMAN; The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay moves that the word "may" in the fourth line of section 3 be struck out and the word "shall" substituted therefor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This argument is, of course, the argument which went on in the drafting of the bill. I have always held the view which the hon. member has, but some draftsmen take the view of the hon. member for Labelle. In the light of the discussion the government will be pleased to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John George Diefenbaker: May I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops:
That section 3 be amended by adding after the word "status" in line 35. the following words, "or racial origin."


Mr. LESAGE:: I went to the United States last week. The immigration officer asked me what was my nationality. I said "Canadian citizen". He inscribed "Canadian citizen", but he said, "What 'is your racial origin?" I said, "White". He put down "White", and he was satisfied. But I had to give both. I do not think that when the racial origin is asked for it is sufficient to answer "Canadian citizen". I may be a negro and be a Canadian citizen, and my racial origin is "black"; I may be a Chinaman and be a Canadian citizen, and my racial origin is "yellow". There are not many racial origins. It is untrue to say that I am of the French race. I am of French descent; some others are of English or of Scottish descent. There are not a great number of races; there are white, black, yellow, red, brown.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Is the hon. member
sure it is "white?" The Chinese believe it is "pink".


Joseph Arthur Lesage: It may be.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the amendment
carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. There is a good deal of merit in what has been said by the hon. members for Eglinton and Lake Centre. The hon. member for Lake Centre, as he has

demonstrated on many occasions in this house, is a good lawyer, and he knows perfectly well that it is not possible to envisage every kind of situation. What we are seeking to do is, as he stated, to avoid the carte blanche imposition of such questionnaires as he has referred to and others which I know about, as well, in the administration of my department. By "national status" we simply mean the sort of thing that has to do with the country to which the person owes his allegiance. I do not think the section should be amended to take care of the particular suggestions he has in mind; not that I am not fully appreciative of the points which he makes. But, having in mind the provisions of the other acts we have looked at and the experience of other countries, I think it would be better to leave the situation just as it is. I should have no objection to adding this-and I make it as a suggestion without undertaking to add it or to suggest that it should be added, but merely to argue the point. In order to have it conform to one of the latter sections, we might say "is required to state or declare his citizenship, nationality, or national status". That would help a little, but would not meet the point of the member for Lake Centre, but that is the extent to which I think we should go.


Mr. REID:: In municipal and provincial elections many persons have been challenged at the poll on the ground of citizenship. I refer to those who come from European countries and have been granted naturalization. Under this bill, when a man appears to cast his vote, in a provincial election, and is asked by the presiding officer to produce his naturalization papers, exactly what will be his status?	*


Paul Joseph James Martin: No act of this parliament can affect the operation of a provincial act dealing with elections. That is one of the prerogatives given to the provinces. If, however, anyone is asked what his national status is, he will say in reply, pursuant to the passage of this section, that he is a Canadian citizen.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister discussed this bill with the United States authorities? How will the United States treat citizens under the act if this bill becomes law?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has asked a question to which I am glad to reply. When the bill was prepared we thought it desirable to have the advantage of as many minds as possible. Officials of my department invited persons who have to do with the administration of the naturalization act and

Canadian Citizenship
the citizenship act of the United States to give us the benefit of some of their experiences, and we also profited by the experience of others in other parts of the commonwealth. While I have no right to say what the United States will do by way of its laws, I have every assurance that our wishes in this matter will hereafter be fully respected.


Mr. McMASTER:: I have often heard politicians on the hustings make statements which they do not believe to be true and do not intend to abide by, but when it comes to enacting law, surely we must mean what we say. If the bill is amended as suggested, this might result. A man comes, say from Poland, and after four years of intensive education, which the learned Secretary of State has said he will get, he has learned enough English and enough about our laws to become a Canadian citizen. How can he say that his racial origin is Canadian, seeing that he is only a naturalized Canadian citizen anyway? We should not say something which even an act of parliament cannot make true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has expressed what I should have stated. It is a fuller answer than I gave to the member for Lake Centre. I agree with much that he-says.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think it is any kind of answer, with due respect to both hon. gentlemen. There is no difference to-day in national status in this country by reason of this legislation. That was stated by the Secretary of State. People who were Canadian citizens before this bill was introduced are still Canadian citizens. Canadian citizen was accepted as a description, of Canadians before this bill was introduced.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only for a limited purpose.


John George Diefenbaker: For what limited purpose ?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman was not here last night.


John George Diefenbaker: I read what the minister said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 2 of the immigration act did define citizenship for a limited group of persons. Citizenship under the immigration act was a definition of citizenship for those who came to Canada from outside. This bill goes beyond that and touches people who were born here, and British subjects who have acquired domicile here and will become citizens automatically on the passing of the bill. It covers a whole series of individuals who are not affected by section 2 of the immigration act.


John George Diefenbaker: I fully realize that. A Canadian nationality was accepted by departments of government. You could register as a Canadian when you enlisted in the army, provided you were born in this country. Does the minister negative that suggestion?
I see him bowing his head in a way which indicates that he does not agree.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do you object to my bowing my head?


John George Diefenbaker: After last night's experience and after reading Hansard it is difficult to know whether the minister wants any suggestions or wants any help in connection with the bill. I read what he said last night and it did not indicate that cooperation which he asked the house to give him i' putting through the measure.


Mr. POULIOT:: He thanked me for w' .t I did for him.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, well; I ead the hon. gentleman's contribution-


Jean-François Pouliot: I did very little, ad he appreciated it.	_


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister had any conversations with those in charge of the census which would indicate tha from now on they will not ask native-borr Canadians their racial origin at the time of egistration? Because unless that assurance ;. given, this section is meaningless and the 1 opes of many people across the country a? to what will result from the passing of the .neasure will be denied. If the minister has t' e assurance-that that is going to follow, I do not care whether it says national status or what it says. If however he has not that assurance, then we shall be placing before the people of the country a bill translated into law which will lead them to believe that there will be a new citizenship without regard to racial origin, while at the same time retaining the one thing that has caused more difficulty than any other in attaining Canadian unity. The minister waved aside the suggestion when I raised it at first and said that it had been answered by the hon. member for High Park. I do not think it was answered. The minister is being praised across the country for doing away with a condition which holds back unity in Canada, and now when an opportunity is given to clarify the situation, since there is no definition of national status, he says: I cannot accept that at all, because apparently it would be going too far. My hon. friend mentioned the question of race a while ago. That is what I have in mind. If under the census the question of race is asked, as in the

Canadian Citizenship
United States, then the various cbloured races may so describe themselves, the Japanese and Chinese being required to describe themselves accordingly. But if under the guise of leading the people of this country to believe that a new Canadian nationality is to be established we continue by the back door to accentuate racial origin, then the act will be meaningless.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has just come back from his holiday, as we all have, and I want him to know that the very pleasant relations which have always prevailed between us continue, in' spite of the recess. If I appeared to give another impression, certainly that was not my intention. One of the most encouraging things to me about this bill has been that right from the outset the hon. gentleman, with whom I took the liberty of talking about this matter, spoke of it in such high terms and gave m'e such support that I would not want that situation to be changed; and I assure him that is exactly the spirit in which I am continuing. Last night I had thought that I displayed very good humour, and I am sorry if that was not so. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that I share with him to the full the desirability of avoiding this business of origins, as he has indicated. Not only have I discussed this matter with the bureau of statistics and the minister under whose jurisdiction that comes; the new census, or for that matter any census, before it is carried out, must be approved by the executive arm of government, so I can tell the hon. gentleman that hereafter the sort of thing he complains about regarding national status, and I think very properly, will not happen.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Does that apply to the quinquennial census to be taken this year in the west?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It'applies to every census after the passage of this bill in so far as national status is concerned.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: There will be one starting in June.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As the discussion on this section has proceeded I am bound to say it has given me a certain measure of disquiet. I had assumed that this section had been carefully considered in relation to the problem we are now discussing; that is, the relationship of citizenship to racial origin. I entirely agree with what has been said as to the desirability of eliminating, as far as possible, considerations of racial origin, where these have been inimical to the development of a IMr. Diefenbaker.]
sense of national unity. I appreciate the suggestion of the Secretary of State that when it comes to inserting such words as "or racial origin" it may be a little difficult to say how far such an amendment might extend, but I had hoped consideration would have been given to that already. We have been told that very careful thought has been devoted	to the draftsmanship	and	theprinciples	of this bill.	Census has	been	discussed. Census is an important question in relation to the matter we are now discussing, but I am not at all sure that it is the whole question. Other situations affecting racial origin could properly be dealt with on the basis of	giving an	answer in	terms	of
citizenship. x
I take it the purpose of this bill is to direct the thought of the people to Canadian citizenship rather than	to matters	of racial
origin. Canadian citizenship is something we are all to have in common, something that will be a binding force in Canada, because it puts us all on a common footing and surely that is what we want. If we do not do it in this bill, I do not know where we are going to do it in relation to carrying that matter of citizenship, the thing we have in common, into those situations where we have not things in common, namely, questions of racial origin.
I suggest that further consideration be given to this section, and that it be held over in the meantime. We may be some time on the other sections. In the interval further consideration can be given to the relationship of section 3, as it now stands, to situations in which a citizen may be required to declare his racial origin. I do not think we should pass the section in the limited form in which it now appears. The words "national status" may have a narrow significance; and if they have, this bill if passed would fall far short of our hopes. If there are complications which the Secretary of State feels cannot be adequately foreseen at the moment in connection with the introduction of such words as "or racial origin" then I earnestly call upon him to postpone consideration of this section until it. can be given further consideration. If we do not do something about putting aside considerations of racial origin in this measure,
I do not know where we are going to do it. This section must be the place in which it is done. If we cannot foresee all the permutations and combinations which might then arise, I earnestly suggest that the section be held over for further consideration, if the minister will agree to do so.

Canadian Citizenship


William Alexander McMaster: I do not think we should entirely do away with this question- of racial origin, though I cannot see far enough ahead definitely to say so. I am of Scotch descent and I am proud of it, but I cannot think of any race whose people need be ashamed of their origin. They can all be proud of it; and I do not believe any member of any race who is not proud of that race will ever make a good Canadian.


Mr. FULTON:: Carrying on from where the hon. member for High Park left off, I agree with him one hundred per cent; but what we are trying to do here is to make every Canadian proud of his Canadian citizenship. I think perhaps the trouble is that hon. members are not fully aware of what the hon. member for Lake Centre had in mind when he brought up this question of racial origin. If in the returns that we are required to make we perpetuate the racial origin, as that term is now understood, then we are making it impossible to be proud of being Canadian citizens and of being Canadians. I have here a. page from the instructions to the census takers, issued at the time of the last census. The hon. member for Montmagny-L 'Islet brought to the attention of the house the fact that when he went into the United States the other day they asked his racial origin. He replied "white", and that was accepted. If that were all that was implied in connection with racial origin I should say it would be satisfactory. But the heading on page 44 of [DOT]these instructions to census takers is, "Column 25-racial origin." If you look at the census form, column 25 is subjoined to column 24. Column 24 is headed "Nationality or citizenship", and column 25 is headed "Racial origin". Then on page 44 the instructions go on to say:
(1)	What is racial origin? The word "race" signifies "descendants of a common ancestor."
(a)	It is imperative to understand that a person's racial origin and nationality very often are -different, for instance, the Canadian nationality comprises many different racial origins, e.g., English, French, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Italian, German, et cetera.
That is what the hon. member for Lake Centre is talking about when he speaks about racial origin and the desirability of doing away with that in our census regulations.
(b)	The name of a country from which a person came to Canada gives no indication of that person's racial origin, e.g.. a person may have come to Canada from Austria, but may be Polish or German or Italian, et cetera . . .
(c)	The word "Canadian" does not denote a racial origin, but a nationality; the same applies to the word "American."
Then I see this in paragraph 2:
(2)	What determines racial origin? As a general rule a person's racial origin is to be
traced through his father, eg., if a person's father is English and his mother French the racial origin shall be entered as English, while a person whose father is French and whose mother is English shall be entered as French, and similarly for other combinations.
Racial origin, as so far understood in our departmental instructions, is taken to- mean the country of origin of a person's father. We do not want that perpetuated. From now on a person is a Canadian, and if his father was a Canadian his racial origin is Canadian. If the hon. member for Eglinton is agreeable I do not think the matter should be left over. It should be settled now. If the minister will consider the point of view to which I have just referred, I believe he will agree that it is not sufficient to say that departmental instructions will be altered. We would like to see the alterations written into the act itself, and to help him do away with the distinction as to race in our new Canadian citizenship.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: One very easy way would be to correct the census regulations so that they will give the true definition of racial origin, in contrast with the country of origin of ancestors. There is a difference between the country of origin of ancestors, and racial origin. That should be in the census regulations, and not in Canadian citizenship law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why?


Joseph Arthur Lesage: That is the law dealing with nationality. It does not deal with racial origin, or with racial origin of forefathers. We are now talking about citizenship, and if there is a question on the census form dealing with racial origin, and if such definition of racial origin is not correct, it should be changed there. We have no business to cihange it in a law dealing with citizenship.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is What we are trying to do.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet has read the section, because section 3 says:
Where, under any act of the parliament of Canada-


Joseph Arthur Lesage: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The words from "under" to "such act" have been deleted.


John George Diefenbaker: Regardless of the omission, there is no difference in the import. It says that where under an order or a regulation made-


Joseph Arthur Lesage: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: This is what it says:
Where a person is required to state or declare his national status-
Canadian Citizenship

That does not alter the circumstances at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It broadens it.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, as the hon. member for Eglinton points out, it actually broadens it, because it makes it more general, and does not restrict it to an act of parliament or an order or a regulation. It covers every possible contingency.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, all this discussion reminds me of the German theories respecting the Aryan race, which they say is superior to all other races. What do we care about the race of a man if he is a good citizen? A man may be bom of parents who are in gaol, and still be an excellent citizen. He may suffer because of his parentage, but still be a good citizen-not always, of course, because there are some cases of heredity. But we must consider this matter from a different point of view, because we are supposed to show a democratic spirit. Here we are discussing this matter along exactly the same lines as were followed by Hitler's general staff, when they were organizing Hitler Germany.
There are some races to whom people in some parts of Canada object. Some of the people in British Columbia do not like the Japanese, and this is a controversial question in that part of Canada. In eastern Canada some other people are not interested in living with people from continental Europe. That, too, is a controversial matter. I am wondering if the best possible way to find new citizens would not be to consider their turn of mind, their disposition or inclination to help us make something out of this country. To my mind this is a vital and crucial point, although I respect the views of those who have discussed the matter of racial origin.
I would refer to my hon. friend from Vegreville, who is not of British or of French stock. But he is proud of his race, and his nationality is Canadian-period. He is a good Canadian, and the type of desirable citizen we need in this country. He is not the only one; there are many others. I wonder if he has any objection to the discussions of racial origin which inevitably result in discrimination. And those discussions of racial issues are carried on by whom? It is done by the master race, which has the privilege of telling all other races, "You do not belong to our master race." That is the German attitude. It can be said in English; it can be said in French; it can be said in Ukrainian; it can be said in Russian-it can be said in any other language. But as a democrat I do not care for it. I believe the time spent in discussing anyone's racial merits is lost time.

The best speech made in this debate was made by tihe hon. member for Saskatoon City, when he discussed the intermingling and mixing of races. I have been in Europe, and have known many people in England. There were a very few who thought that at the time of the coronation their only equals were the bombastic Germans. Blomberg was there, with his big chest, and was considered their equal by some of the English. But that was not the mentality or the opinion of the majority of the English people who were there. There is however a group of individuals who recognize the master race. There is a German point of view and there is an English point of view in some heads in England-and unfortunately in some heads in Canada, too.
This, precisely, is the main obstacle to national unity-the attitude of superiority on the part of men who think they are better than others, or who think that because they were born of certain parentage they are of better stock. This reminds me of the foolishness of the English clergyman who, writing a gene-ology of the present king, stated that King David was his ancestor, and that he was a cousin' of our Lord. This was distributed at the time of the coronation, and I believe all hon. members who were there received a copy of it. Well, that may be so; but we are now in the twentieth century, and far from King David. We have to live with our contemporaries and we must make the best of it. Opinions are free, and of course matters connected with racial origin may be discussed. All hon. members have the same rights, and they may enter into the discussion if they wish. But I find that the basis of that discussion is wrong, and that it is dangerous and explosive. It will create animosity throughout the country. When one man says, "I am a big man and you are a little man," conditions are not good. If he is a big man because he belongs to a certain race, and the other fellow, who in fact may be greater than he is, is a minor fellow because he belongs to another race, then we have friction and trouble which may end in civil war. Very often such things are not said here in the house but they are written in papers which are circulated among the ignorant in an effort to create prejudices.
This sort of thing is seldom done in the old country. Even the leaders of the Orangemen, whom I have known and who were members of this parliament, would not do this sort of thing. One of these men whom I knew intimately wrote me a letter in French in his own handwriting. I knew him very well and I was about to convert him. Neither of them ever quoted in this house anything

Canadian Citizenship
that had been written in their favour. They would have been ashamed to repeat in this House of Commons what had been written by their scribes in their own papers.
Since last evening I have discovered that science can be very weighty, and I did not attempt to bring with me the large Webster's dictionary which a friend of mine was kind enough to send over to me last evening. I shall try to make a contribution to this debate by putting on Hansard some of the definitions which I found in Webster's dictionary, and I think they will astound hon. members. When you put them all together it gives you a ' vue d'ensemble of the whole matter of citizenship, of nationhood and so on. The first definition is of "nation", and it reads as follows:
Nation:	(2) People connected by supposed
ties of blood generally manifested by community of language, religion and customs, and by a sense of common interest and inter-relation: thus, the Jews and the Gypsies are often called nations.
3.	Popularly, any group of people having like institutions and customs and a sense of social homogeneity and mutual interest. Most nations are formed of agglomerations of tribes or peoples either of a common ethnic stock or of different stocks fused by long intercourse of single language or closely related dialects, a common religion, a common tradition and history, and a common sense of right and wrong, and a more or less compact territory, or typically characteristic;
That reminds me of the speech made in Boston by the former minister for air when he said that we should have one language. The definition continues:
-but one or more of these elements may be lacking and yet leave a group that from its community of interest and desire to lead a common life is called a nation.
Is it not agreeable to hon. members that they should consider seriously these definitions from Webster's?
4.	Loosely, the body of inhabitants of a country united under a single independent government; a state.
7. One tribe of a group of Indian tribes; as, the Six Nations.
The next definition is of "nationality", and it reads as follows:
Nationality:	2. State, quality, or fact of belonging to. or being connected with a nation or state as by nativity or allegiance; as, nationality acquired by birth may be lost through naturalization in another country.
Nationality and citizenship may be different. The definition of "citizen" is as follows:
Citizen: 1. An inhabitant of a city or town, esp. one who enjoys its freedom and privileges as free man or burgess.
2. A member of a state; a person, native or naturalized, of either sex, who owes allegiance to a government, and is entitled to reciprocal protection from it;-opposed to alien.
Between the word citizen, answering in meaning to the Latin civis and the Greek polites, and the word subject, there is a fundamental distinction in meaning. Subject implies a master or lord to whom the subject owes a personal allegiance; citizen does not, but implies membership of, and the tie of loyalty to, a state, with the reciprocal right to the enjoyment of the privileges and protection flowing from these. A citizen as such is entitled to tile protection of life, liberty, and property at home and abroad, but is not necessarily vested with the suffrage or other political rights. In the construction of statutes, citizen is sometimes made to include corporation.
That is very interesting. According to the definition of "citizen" given by Webster, it is a man who is endowed with civilian rights of a private character rather than public rights. The word has different meanings and the definition is not clear. The definitions I have given probably do not satisfy the minds of the hon. gentlemen who are honouring me by listening to me at the present time. The definition of "subject" is as follows:
Subject:	2. Under the power or dominion of
another; specif., in international law owing allegiance to, or being a subject of ,a particular sovereign or state; as, Jamaica is subject to Great Britain. "Esau was never subject to Jacob." (Locke)	/
And then "alien":
Alien:	1. A person of another family, race,
or nation: a foreigner, stranger.
2. One owing allegiance to another state, a foreign born resident of a country in which he does not possess the privileges of a citizen; also, loosely, a foreign born citizen.
And then "naturalization" and "naturalized":
Naturalization:	1. An act or process of
naturalizing or state of being naturalized.
Naturalized: 2 (a) to confer the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen on; to make as if native; to adopt (as an alien) into a state and place in the condition of a native subject or citizen.
Those are the definitions that I found in Webster's. I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that a distinction is made between the word "citizen", which is used often in connection with republics, and the word "subject", which is used mostly in connection with the inhabitants of kingdoms or possessions of a kingdom. We are a long way from the middle ages, but there are still many people who are subjects of a king. A subtle distinctions drawn between these two expressions, and I suggest to my colleagues that they have a look at them and endeavour to discuss this matter with an open mind and in the best possible spirit.
Some hon. members may be surprised at our insisting upon a definition, but there is a reason. I want this bill to satisfy my own mind and expectations. My idea of citizen-
Canadian Citizenship

ship is very lofty. I agree to a certain extent with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, who is sponsoring legislation to come before us later to make more impressive the ceremony of adjudicating upon certificates of citizenship. If there is no definition of citizenship in the bill, if we do not agree to work together to draft a satisfactory definition of citizenship, there will be 244 definitions of it offered by the members of this committee. I say 244 instead of 245 because of the unavoidable absence of the former member for Parkdale, Doctor Bruce. Here we are and each member may have his own definition, and more than one; he may offer two; he may offer three; he may offer four, so that we may be confronted with a volume of definitions, so much so that nobody will understand any of them. What is this great privilege which we confer, for instance, upon some person coming to us from Czechoslovakia who has never heard before of democracy and citizenship, or upon some brave man from the steppes of Russia who never had an opportunity to vote for several candidates in the few elections held in his own country? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
One has only to look at what is going on in the west where there are so many people of different races. They are doing well. They work together. They show a fine spirit of unison in promoting the interests of this country. Yet the western provinces are the least English and perhaps the least French of all the provinces of Canada. This shows that people may come to us from all over the world and join together with the common and definite purpose of making good here and of serving this country as good Canadians. That is our ambition for them.
What will be the immigration policy of this government, I do not know, and I am not interested in that at the present time. What I am now interested in is in finding ways and means of impressing those who come here from other countries that it/ is a great privilege to be a Canadian citizen because Canada is the finest country in the world. That must be impressed upon them, and they must be told in very clear language what citizenship is, so that they can abide by the law. If there is a good definition of citizenship in the act it will serve a good purpose because then there will be no ambiguity about it. The newcomer will be told: Here is your duty according to the law. Those who have been living in totalitarian countries do not care much about kings. They do not care much about some of the institutions which many Canadians cherish. But they do respect

the law, and if we want them to act as good Canadian citizens they must know what the law is and they must abide by it.
I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that during the past fifteen years I have not been enthusiastic about all the pieces of legislation that have been submitted to us. Some were wrong, and others which were good were wrongly drafted. This is the first opportunity I have to make good a piece of legislation which can better serve the definite purpose of uniting Canada than any lectures given by university professors or highly paid speakers who go round addressing the various clubs.
I have taken this matter to heart and discussed it with the hon. members for Char-levoix-Saguenay, and Jacques Cartier, and there is one definition of a Canadian citizen which has been arrived at. It is this. A Canadian citizen is a person who has a combination of public rights and duties. Another and more complete definition of citizenship would be a combination of public rights and duties of persons domiciled in Canada. Perhaps that is not complete, but it will serve as a basis for discussion, a much better basis than the discussion of racial origin, and it is very close to that which was given by the leader of the C.C.F. group. It refers to a Canadian subject. There is a shade of difference between a Canadian subject and a Canadian citizen, because in the definition of Canadian subject the link between the subject and the king appears. A Canadian subject would be one who by birth or by naturalization is a subject of His Majesty the King of Canada. That is another definition though it probably will not be agreed to by all the members. Opinions are free. The members who do not agree to it may have suggestions of their own to offer. We live in a free country, but the rule in a free country is the rule of the majority, and I do not see why an imposing majority of Canadians at heart should cater to a small and noisy minority of Canadians of different opinions, which may be respectable just the same. We are all here to decide what the act shall be. It may be unpleasant to some of us, but as we are here we have to submit to the rule of the majority. I did it so often myself that I understand it very well. I submitted to it even when I disagreed with everybody. It is the law of the country; and the only thing to do is to try to improve the law by making some suggestions. At the present time my contention is not at all that I am infallible in offering these definitions; it is a contribution to the discussion, and I invite most cordially my colleagues of all

Canadian Citizenship
shades of opinion to make their discussion to the same effect, instead of discussing racial origins; it will serve a much better purpose. I hope in all earnestness for the good of the country that this will be done, and I hope the minister will be broad enough to accept the suggestion which will be supported by a majority of the members of parliament. It will be sent to the senate. Perhaps it will pass there; perhaps it will not. But the effect of getting together to find a formula will be an example of national unity to the people of Canada. How many times the people complain that nothing is done in the House of Commons. The other day my hon. friend the ex-leader of the opposition spoke of spiritual values. A clear enunciation in a limpid definition of "citizenship" will do more for national unity than one might suppose at first sight. The question has been considered seriously, I think, and I hope it will bear fruit.


William Alexander McMaster: This discussion has
arisen, perhaps, unexpectedly. I would call the attention of the Secretary of State to the Statistics Act, chapter 190 of the revised statutes of Canada, in which provision is made for a census to be taken in June, 1031, and every tenth year thereafter. In section 19, provision is made as follows:
Each census of population and agriculture shall be so taken as to ascertain with the utmost possible accuracy for the various territorial divisions of Canada, or of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as the case may be.
(a) their population and the classification thereof, as regards name, age, sex. conjugal condition, relation to head of household, nationality, race, education. . . .
So that the particular forms used by the census enumerators have t'he authority of statute. Again, I wish to say, because I have been opposed to this bill from the beginning as being unnecessary, that in the instructions given to the enumerators they were told that there was a Canadian citizenship. That is * why I think this bill is not necessary to provide a Canadian citizenship

but for some other reason, which we shall probably discuss further.


Mr. CASE:: A great deal of emphasis seems to be placed upon the census feature in relation to the bill. I take it that the object of Canadian citizenship is to seek to have Canadian citizens recognized under international law as Canadian citizens and to give them a greater sense of appreciation of their own country. 1 fail to see what objection there can be to declaring racial origin or national status. I look upon the census as a statistical record, and the more information it contains the better it will be for record
purposes. I do not see that the provision is objectionable from the point of view that is being emphasized here to-day. As a matter of fact, almost everyone, surely, must be proud of his racial origin, and it is declared with the object of having the record that much more complete.


Thomas Reid: I should like to say a word on this matter; I am inspired to do so by the remarks made by the hon. member for High Park.
A great deal has been said this afternoon regarding races and racial origins. But let us consider what we are intending to do; let us keep in mind as well the people in this country; for it is advisable, to my way of thinking, that we should take note of this amendment and be careful about letting it go through. There are in this country some thirty-six different races. I suppose, someone will say that all are of the same race because all came from Adam, but hon. members know what I mean when I say that there are in Canada people from thirty-six different countries, and I can see nothing wrong, nothing detrimental to the idea of Canadian citizenship, that a man from Japan or China or Scotland should be asked to state from what countiy he comes. As a matter of fact, when one speaks of racial prejudice what do we actually find in this country? We find people whose ancestors came from Scotland or England or Germany, two, four, or five generations back who are more proud of the lands of their forefathers than even I, who come from Scotland. It is a well known fact, and it need no longer be concealed, that Great Britain during the recent war wished to move in on the south of Ireland. Britain would have had possession of the south of Ireland but for one thing-the great numbers of people in the United States whose forefathers came from the south of Ireland. Every second policeman in New York is an Irishman, and the political influence of these people, the second, third and fourth generations of Irishmen in the United States, had more effect on policy relating to the south of Ireland than any other factor. Great Britain was afraid to move in and take charge of the south of Ireland, as she should have done, for the safety of the country, at that time.
Consider, too, what Great Britain does. Those of us who come from the British isles know that, whether we are Scottish, English, Northern Irish, or Welsh, the births of the children are not registered as British, but Scottish children are. registered as Scots. English children as English, Irish children as Irish, and Welsh children as Welsh. Has that caused any great discord in the British
Canadian Citizenship

isles? I know there are those who would control one's even getting up to speak about racial origin, but have we no trust in the people? I come from a land where a man can stand on the street corner and talk about the churches, criticize the Roman Catholic church, denounce the Pope, talk about the Jews, or anything else under the sun, in full freedom. Does it arouse any animosity in the minds of the people of Great Britain? Where has there been fairer treatment for all nationalities than in Great Britain? Where has the Jew found surer rest for his feet and greater peace than in Great Britain? Yet you can go to the street corners or the parks and hear now, as for the last fifty years, people denouncing the Jews and talking against many other people; no one prevents them.
I am one of those who have faith in the people, and I am surprised at any member from British Columbia taking any other stand. Particularly I am surprised that the hon. member for Kamloops supports this amendment, in view of the stand he took regarding the Japanese. In my opinion there is no undue interference in the present procedure; we must have some guide or record regarding the thirty-six different peoples represented in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to rise for just one moment. The hon. member for Temiscouata raised the point which he discussed last night and since that time he has put a great deal of research on the matter. I would not want that research to go without some comment from me. He is to be commended for once again showing great industry, and the suggestions he has made will receive the fullest consideration at my hands. I want him to know that his words have been listened to with close attention and will receive further close study by me. Once again the hon. member has shown his capacity for deep research, and I commend him for it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister very much for his kind words, and I will say that the Prime Minister must be congratulated upon having appointed him to the cabinet at the same time as the Minister of Transport was appointed. Both of them are doing very well; and I shall have something finer to tell the minister if he accepts the suggestion of any member of the committee who will come with a good definition of "citizenship" to give a real backbone to the bill. .


Alistair McLeod Stewart: An immigrant, on going to the United States, within twenty-four hours of landing can say with justifiable pride "I am an American". An
[Mr Reid.]
immigrant coming to this country has little chance to say, "I am a Canadian". That is going to stop and I hope that we shall all be known as Canadians. One of the most ' divisive forces we. have is insistence on racial origin. I see no reason and no necessity for it at all. We are told that it is necessary for the purposes of the census. I doubt that. I have friends in western Canada who are of the third or fourth generation and who are still, as far as the census is concerned, referred to as Germans, Ukrainians, Scots and so on. They are Canadians. The steady in-' sistence by governments as well as by business on this aspect of racial origin is, I think, detrimental to what we wish to see prevail in Canada, namely, genuine unity. I hope the minister will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre and add the three words "or racial origin" to this clause.


Mr. RICHARD (Gloucester):: Is this discussion really necessary? Must we on this section go into the question of national status or racial origin? It seems to me that the section as it reads is clear enough. A man is asked what his national status is and he must state whether he is a Canadian citizen or not. It has no reference to racial origin.
If there are other acts or regulations under which a man is asked what his racial origin is and he replies "Canadian citizen" he is not complying with that particular act or regulation. He is not answering the question there asked. That is all. As the section stands, it serves a purpose. A man in Canada is asked whether he is a Canadian subject; he is asked about his national status, and he need not go into the question of racial origin, because if he does so he is going into another sphere altogether. The clause should remain as it stands.
As to differentiating between racial origins,
I am proud to be a Canadian citizen, but I am also proud to be of French origin, and I do not think we should drop that distinction altogether. For certain purposes we should retain it. There is no reason why, for the purposes of the census, our population should not be divided according to racial origin. I do not think there is any harm in that, nor do I believe it makes a man less a Canadian citizen simply because we divide the population according to racial origin purely for purposes of the census. I do not think the bill needs any amendment in that regard because the section is quite clear. For other purposes, so far as o'ther acts are concerned, people can be guided by the provisions therein set out.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Canadian Citizenship
On section 4-Born before the commencement of the act.
Mr. MacNICOL:: What about Indians who have left their tribes and have established themselves like the rest of us, or Indians who have served in His Majesty's forces? Are they automatically Canadian citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born here?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are Canadian citizens. If an Indian was born in' Canada he is a Canadian citizen. The section is clear.


Mr. COLDWELL:: What about the Six Nations Indians around Brantford? Are they regarded as Canadians? I believe they have some international status which enables them to cross the boundary with their own passports.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If they were born in Canada, then under the act they are Canadian citizens. There are two principles by which most countries determine citizenship, law of blood and law of the place of birth. We have a combination of both principles.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Conditions for retention of Canadian citizenship by persons born outside of Canada.
Thomas Reid: Some explanation should be given of this section. When I spoke before I took exception to the fact that a child born outside the country is made a naturalized Canadian merely because either of its parents happened to have been born on a Canadian ship. It is certainly carrying national status pretty far when we confer it upon a child, making that child equal with a person bom in Canada. I should ilke to see us adopt some regulation such as they have in the United States with regard to children born outside that country. After all, we are conferring Canadian nationality upon a child born in another country- simply because one of its parents was born on a Canadian ship, and as I say, that is going too far. Let me read the provision that exists in the United States:
A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien; provided

And here is the point I wish to emphasize. -that in order to retain such citizenship the child must reside in the United States or its
outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years.
They stipulate there that a child cannot attain American citizenship at birth but must have had some residence, at some period, in the United States before it reaches the age of twenty-one. We should be careful in extending citizenship. I would ask the minister the reasons for extending citizenship as far as this bill goes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The principle involved in the section to which the hon. member has referred is not a new one. It was in the old naturalization act even before 1914. In the act as it now stands it is found in section 3, subsection 5, so that it is not new. The principle is one that is recognized by most countries. I would refer to the "Consolidation of Nationality Laws", prepared by Hudson, which is recognized as the best English text on nationality laws, wherein the principle is discussed. The hon. member will find that in almost all countries which were represented at the Hague conference of 1930, the principle is accepted. It is accepted in all the dominions, and we consider the principle is too important to drop. The reason for it, in theory, I think is sound. The desire is, as far as possible, to keep the members of a family within the same national status group, without in any way imposing nationality upon them. It seems desirable that minor children, until such time as they have attained their majority, should have the nationality or the national status of their parents. As to the use of the words "Canadian ship", the hon. member will note that in paragraph (b) of the interpretation section that is defined to mean a ship of Canadian registry, which is a slight change. I can only repeat that the rule is an effort to keep members of the same family within the same national group as far as that is possible, without compulsion and without interfering with their rights, until they attain their majority. When we come to discuss subsequent sections of the bill it will be apparent that this does not mean that nationality acquired in this way cannot be rejected or withdrawn by the parties concerned!. One of the main reasons for the section, and one of the (post difficult things to administer in this kind of act, is the question of statelessness. In the Department of the Secretary of State and in the department of my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources we have thousands of pitiable cases of statelessness among children, and I should think this would
Canadian Citizenship

be the most undesirable time to try to change this principle, particularly in view of conditions in Europe.


Thomas Reid: Suppose a child was born in
China, whose father had been bom on a ship of Canadian registry. Is there no time limit in a case of that kind? Naturally China would confer citizenship on that child, owing to the fact that it was born in that country. Would that child retain Canadian nationality all the days of its life? Is there no time limit?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a time limit of two years in regard to registration. The birth must be registered within two years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Child bom after the death of his father.
Major James William Coldwell: There is just one point in connection with this section. It seemed to us in discussing this matter, that something else should be added in connection with giving this status to a child. At the moment a person bom on board a foreign ship in Canadian territorial waters would be considered to have been born in Canada. Is that not right?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would mind repeating that question; I am sorry, I was otherwise engaged.


Major James William Coldwell: A child born on board a ship in Canadian territorial waters-
Mr. MARTIN. A ship of Canadian registry?


Major James William Coldwell: No, of foreign registry.
Technically it would be born in Canada. There is nothing'in the bill, it seemed to us when we were going through it, to cover that point. Should there not be something in the bill which would state that a child born on board a foreign ship in Canadian territorial waters should not be regarded as a Canadian citizen? It is quite conceivable that at some future time, under certain conditions that might exist, a child so born in Canadian territorial waters on a foreign ship might claim to be Canadian when it would not serve the interests of this country to recognize that person as of Canadian nationality. I raise that point because when we were going through the bill we thought it was not covered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is very funny that our
minds should be working in the same direction.


Gordon Graydon: It is not very funny.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it is not, because up to a point the hon. gentleman and I have the same type of liberalism. We cannot agree on

everything, but one thing on which we do agree is that the hon. member for Peel is a very genial member; as to that there is no argument. What the hon. gentleman has said really applies to section 5. The point is interesting and not without some merit. I have in my hand an amendment which I have been thinking about, but according to the officers of the immigration department such cases are very rare. I think there have been two in about sixty years, and it would be perhaps the wrong thing to include a principle which seems to strike particularly at what Hudson says in his treatise. In view of the fact that the cases are very rare, perhaps I should not proceed with what I have been toying with to cover the particular case. Sometimes more is to be gained by dealing with broader questions than by trying to cover many things which in themselves are important but which in their context may not be so important. I think I had better leave it that way.


Frédéric Dorion: I believe there is a time limit missing from this section. As it reads now, if a child is born five years after the death of his father he is deemed to have been born before his father's death. I suggest to the minister that in our civil code we have a section which settles the question. I believe this section should be amended along the lines of section 218 of the civil code, which says:
A child born on or after the one hundred and eightieth day after the marriage was solemnized or within three hundred days after its dissolution is held to have been conceived during marriage.
So that in this section I think after the word "father" should be added, "but within three hundred days after such death." That would mean something, I think.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has raised a point which I am afraid is away beyond my imagination. I do not see how a person could be the child of a father when that child is born five years after the father's death, though there may be something in medical science with which the Minister of Veterans Affairs has not yet made me acquainted. I believe the section is satisfactory as it stands.


Frédéric Dorion: I move that amendment, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is necessary.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I had better
explain why the section is there. As the committee will note, this is a new section. In the comments made about this bill in the "American Journal of International Law" some months ago it will be noted that this section was praised as an advanced section in

Canadian Citizenship
nationality legislation. Incidentally, I am sure lion, members would profit from reading the article in that journal, because it comments on some of the outstanding features of this bill.
This section is new, and it is important because in certain cases where the father is a Canadian citizen but the mother is not the child is not deprived of his Canadian status merely because of the prenatal death of his father. It could be particularly important In times such as the war from which we have just emerged, when large numbers of Canadians were abroad on hazardous duties. The reason for the section is to give a posthumous child the status of his brothers and sisters born during the lifetime of his father. All the provincial statutes dealing with inheritance contain provisions placing the posthumous child on the same basis as children born during the father's lifetime. The mother may not necessarily be a Canadian citizen, since she may never have come to this country. On the other hand, by section 4(b) we are conferring Canadian citizenship upon the children of a father if the father was a natural-born Canadian. This will cover the situation of a Canadian soldier stationed, for example, in Belgium or Holland, and contracting marriage with a woman in one of those countries. Under the bill, while the father was alive, the child would be a natural-born Canadian citizen.


Mr. HACKETT:: May I ask a question? All that has been suggested is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I finish this point, and state the reasons for the section. It would clearly be an injustice if, should the father be accidentally killed or die, a child born two days or a few months after his death would not enjoy the same status as other children. That is the purpose of the section.


John Thomas Hackett: What the hon. member has suggested is that in the first line of section 8 there should be added after the word "born" the words "within 300 days".


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the point of that? Surely that is covered.


John Thomas Hackett: The point is to fix the date within which legitimacy is beyond question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This section has nothing to do with legitimacy or illegitimacy.


John Thomas Hackett: I think it has a great deal to do with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it has not.


John Thomas Hackett: If a child were born out of wedlock it would not qualify here. The
suggestion of the hon. member is one which would make it quite clear that a child1 born "within 300 days after the death of its father" would not be put to proof of nationality.


Frédéric Dorion: How long after the death of its father would a child be deemed to be bom before the death of its father?


Joseph Arthur Lesage: That is provincial law.


Frédéric Dorion: What would be the time for the purpose of this bill?


Joseph Arthur Lesage: There are laws in the provinces concerning affiliation. We do not have to deal with that. All section 8 says is that where a child is born after the death of his father certain things shall take place. The question of knowing whether the man was or was not the father is one of affiliation, and that is a provincial matter. We have nothing to do with it. He either is or is not the father. To determine whether he is or is not is the duty of the provinces under provincial law.
Amendment (Mr. Dorion) negatived.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-On commencement of the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suggest that some clarification is required in subsection 1 at line 20. Section 9 (1) says:
A person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen if he . . .
Then we find paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), with nothing to link them. The Secretary of State will notice that at the end of paragraph (a) there is only a semi-colon, that at the end of paragraph (b) appears another semicolon and the words "or, in the case of a woman". Is subsection 1 to be read as though these were conjunctive clauses? It seems to me there should be inserted after the semi-colon the word "and" or the word "or"; or if it is intended to cover it both ways, the words "and/or" should appear. A similar change may have to be made after paragraph (b).
This is a point of real importance, it seems to me, namely whether a person becomes a Canadian citizen technically if he complies with (a) or with (b), and does not have to comply with both.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member suggest that we should insert the word "or" between paragraphs (a) and (b)?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has to be "or" or "and", depending on whether the minister intends that the stipulations in (a) and (b)>
should be cumulative or alternative.
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are alternative, of course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, if they are alternative the word "or" will have to be inserted after the semi-colon in line 20.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe under the Interpretation Act when the conjunctive is used, there is no need for a change of this kind. However, I have no objection to adding the word "or."


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would clarify the meaning. Therefore I would move:
That the word "or" be added after the semicolon in line 20 of section 9 (1) of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alexander McMaster: Would the minister
explain paragraph (c) ? I find it difficult to understand the meaning of it. Let us suppose this act were declared in force on June 1. Then let us suppose that on June 2 one of our soldiers overseas were to marry an English girl. Would she become a Canadian citizen?


Paul Joseph James Martin: She would not be a Canadian citizen automatically.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to refer to subsection'2 (a). I understand that many years ago there were two forms of naturalization. In the homesteading days in western Canada there was a residence of three years, at the end of which time those making application received. certificates which were looked upon as naturalization certificates. Subsequently, however, when the imperial act was passed and we changed our naturalization procedure to conform with it, we stipulated a period of five years domicile before naturalization could be changed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was five years in 1919 and three years in 1910.


Major James William Coldwell: Some of these people took out the second naturalization certificate. Should we not recognize the first certificate to this extent, that where the name of an applicant was included in a certificate of naturalization on, as stated here, "the date of the certificate", it should be the date of the earliest certificate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would call the hon. member's attention to section 2 (d) where it says that

"Certificate of naturalization" means a certificate of naturalization granted under any act heretofore in force in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: That covers the point I have just raised?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, that was the chief point we had in mind.


Major James William Coldwell: Then that satisfies me.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Grant of a certificate of Canadian citizenship.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a section of great importance. Up to the present time one might state fairly that there has been no disagreement in principle on the bill, although a number of textual amendments have been offered. But when we come to section 10 we have reached one of the leading sections in the bill. I suppose this section taken with section 26 would contain the nub of the bill, so far as debate is concerned.
May I draw the attention of the committee to the fact, first, that the bill contains no definition of "British subject". It has been indicated on all sides of the house that the correct interpretation of the term "British subject" is a person who owes allegiance to the crown. By section 28 it is made quite clear that such privileges as are extended to British subjects under this bill are confined to British subjects coming from one of the commonwealth countries. By section 28 these privileges are confined to those countries in the first schedule of the bill, which limits any benefits accruing to British subjects as such to those who come from the self-governing nations of the commonwealth. What I have to say relates to that class. We are not dealing with British subjects from other parts of the empire; we are dealing simply with British subjects from the self-governing nations of the commonwealth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out that this section deals with British subjects from all parts of the commonwealth. I do not wish to interfere with my hon. friend's argument, but I want him to know my point of view.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My remarks will be quite clear on that when I move the amendment which I propose to introduce. I draw to the attention of the committee the requirements of section 10. It will be found that it is permissive in empowering the minister, who is the Secretary of State, to grant a certificate of Canadian citizenship to any person who is not a Canadian citizen and who makes application for that purpose and satisfies the court that he has the qualifications within the terms of paragraphs (a) to (g) inclusive.
In a word, those qualifications are, first, that a declaration of intention to become a Canadian citizen should be filed; second, that the applicant has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence in Canada; third, that he has resided in Canada for a total period of five years, one of which must

Canadian Citizenship
be the year immediately preceding the date of the application, and four years of which must be within a six-year period-I am omitting certain exception, to which I shall return later-fourth, that he is of good character; fifth, that he has an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language, or, alternatively, that he has resided in Canada continuously for more than twenty years; sixth, that he has an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship, and, seventh, that he intends, if his application is granted, either to reside permanently in Canada or to enter or continue in the public service of Canada or of a province thereof.
I draw the attention of the committee to one or two exceptions which are made. Paragraph (a) makes an exception in the case of two classes of persons; first, the spouse of a Canadian citizen residing in Canada, that is, a husband or wife and, second, a British subject. Those are the two exceptions. If the applicant has either one or the other of those two attributes he is absolved from filing a declaration of intention, That is the only benefit that accrues to the British subject under subsection 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He still has the other
rights which were mentioned, the right to vote and the right to old age pension.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are dealing now with the acquisition of Canadian citizenship under this bill. I am pointing out that the one exception made by this section in favour of a British subject as such is that he is absolved from filing a declaration of intention under paragraph (a). That is the one difference provided by section 10, subsection 1, between an applicant who is a British . 'bject and an applicant who is not a British su beet. The filing of a declaration of intention hardly be regarded as an onerous undertaking. It is merely the act of filing the declaration 'i a court office. That is the extent of the bene*. '' extended to a British subject under this section in respect of his application for Canadian citizenship. If that section is enacted in its present form and the renowned Winston Churchill chose to take up residence in Canada, he could not become a Canadian citizen in less than five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nor could he for the
past twenty-seven years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am going to come to
that point the minister has been raising. I suggest that what the minister has raised in what he has just said and in what he has said 63260-67
very often during the debate is simply a strawman 'and I am going to deal with it in a moment.


Gordon Graydon: Not a very good strawman either.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Reference has been made to persons who come to this country for temporary purposes. Yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said that people who had come to this country-this is, as I recall his remarks-from the British isles, not intending to make this country their final or permanent abode, up to the present time had rights of citizenship which, rightly speaking, should not be accorded to people who come for a period limited in point of time.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not quite say
that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Canadian Citizenship

been, established, the time of residence, which is five years in practically all cases or one year in two cases under this section, begins to run.
Let us ask ourselves what is the purpose of requiring five years' residence. In the first place, it is linked up to the subject of domicile because it gives full proof of the intention of establishing a settled residence. It is designed principally, however, to ensure that the applicant shall have learned the ways of this country, shall have absorbed its democratic methods and shall have shown sufficient proof that he will be assimilated into this country and especially to that end that he shall have learned one or other of the two official languages.
What is the position of a British subject in Canada at the present time under existing legislation? In the course of what I shall say in reply to that question I shall deal with the point raised by the Secretary of State.
The Naturalization Act has no application to British subjects. It applies to aliens. The effect of naturalization under the provisions of the Naturalization Act is to extend to an alien qualifying under that act the rights and status of a natural-born British subject. The Naturalization Act has no reference whatever bo British subjects coming to Canada. No British subject, has ever had to qualify under that act. It simply has no application to British subjects coming to this country. Section 4 empowers the minister to grant a certificate of naturalization to an alien, and section 5 of the Naturalization Act, in defining the effect of the grant of a certificate of naturalization, provides that as and from the date of the naturalization the applicant shall have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject. In other words, the Naturalization Act has for its purpose the granting to aliens who satisfy the requirements of the act of a status equivalent to that of natural-born British subjects. Similarly, where a person who has obtained a certificate of naturalization forfeits it for any one of several reasons, section 16 provides that he ceases tQ be a British subject. So we have that quite clear. The Naturalization Act has never had any reference to British subjects coming to this country.
Mr._ MARTIN: My hon. friend does not suggest that I ever suggested it had?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I am trying to make clear that this bill, and especially section 10, with which we are now dealing, will make a great difference in the position and status of British subjects coming to this country. In

other words, I am answering as directly as I can the point raised by the minister, and I must say with great respect that I completely differ with him in the view he has put before the committee.
Let us look for a moment at the elections act. We are assured by the minister that the government has no intention of changing the provisions of the elections act. At the present time that may hold out some hope that there will be no interference with the status in respect of franchise now granted to a British subject coming to this country who has established one year's residence here under the elections act. But, of course, we have agreement on the part of the minister, and I think this is known to us all, that there are anomalies about granting the right to vote to persons who are not citizens in the eyes of the country. I am sure that in the United States of America the idea of giving the franchise without citizenship would be regarded as a very strange and anomalous idea indeed. But whatever the anomaly may be, the anomaly is to continue. If section 10 (1) is left in its present form we are legislating an anomaly, when we compare the right to the franchise with citizenship.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did my hon. friend read the judgment to which I referred last night?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am acquainted with that judgment. There is no disagreement between the Secretary of State and myself as to the existence of the anomaly. As a matter of fact he admitted it last night. He pointed to other anomalies. Of course there are anomalies, and I am drawing to his attention that if we pass section 10 (1) in its present form we are legislating an anomaly, as to the existence of which the minister and I are in agreement.
I now turn to the Immigration Act. Here I come to the place where with great respect I hold quite a different view from that propounded in this house by the Secretary of State. He made reference to the fact that there has been a Canadian citizenship of a kind under the Immigration Act. He said that provision has been there for twenty-nine years and we are asked because of that fact to legislate in such a way that there would be no practical difference whatever in respect of application for citizenship between a British subject coming to this country and one coming from an alien land. That is the effect of section 10. If section 10 (1) is enacted in its present form there is no practical difference under this bill between the status of a British subject coming here from any other part of the commonwealth and that of a person

Canadian Citizenship
coming to these shores from an alien land. The only advantage that is given to the British subject coming here from another part of the commonwealth is that he is absolved from the mere detail of filing a declaration of intention, which is no material difference at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend not think he should add that the British subject will continue to have certain privileges-the right to vote, the right to old age pension, the right to be appointed to a civil service position, and so on? Those are privileges not given to any other group.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are talking about citizenship, and I am pointing out, and it is incontrovertible, that if section 10(1) is adopted in its present form there is no material difference between the position of a British subject from another part of the commonwealth and the position of an alien from any other land when it comes to applying for Canadian citizenship. That is incontrovertible.
We are told that it is not the intention of the government to interfere with the franchise in the case of a British subject who has been here for one year and has qualified. But is that a guarantee that it will not be changed? The minister would not go any farther last night, when asked if he would clarify the government's position, than to say that it is not the intention of the government to introduce an amendment to the election act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What more could I say?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Presumably the law can be changed even apart from an intention on the'part of the government.
I come back to the Immigration Act. The Immigration Act is an act dealing with a particular field. It does not at all purport to be an act defining "Canadian citizenship" or the status of a Canadian citizen. The Secretary of State was much closer to the law, may I say with great respect, when he said this afternoon in reply to a question by the hon. member for Lake Centre that the definition of "Canadian citizenship" under the Immigration Act applies only to a limited number of those in this country who have the rights of citizenship. Are we to be told that the limited definition of "Canadian citizen" under the Immigration Act, put there for a very limited purpose in relation to immigration and not at all for the purpose of defining the rights and status of a Canadian citizen, and applying to a very limited class of those properly entitled to the rights of citizenship in this country, is an answer to those who say that if you enact section 10 in its present form you 63260-671
are to all intents and purposes putting the British subject coming here from some other part of the commonwealth in practically the same position as an alien?
Let us bear in mind that there is no proposal to interfere with the Immigration Act. Whatever is to be said in justification of the provision of the Immigration Act which makes persons admitted under that act liable to deportation within five years of their entry in certain events-whatever is to be said in support of that will continue to be said 'because that act is not to be interfered with. But we are not here dealing with the Immigration Act but rather with the question of establishing the terms of citizenship, those who are to qualify for it and the terms on which they should qualify and the rights and privileges which flow from Canadian citizenship. So let us not drag in any red herrings about the Immigration Act because the term "citizen" is not used at all in that act in the same sense in which it is used in this bill. So. let us have no confusion. The two acts are separate and distinct.
Even in the face of the provisions of the Immigration Act, what was the position of a British subject coming to this country? On lawful admission he had the rights and privileges of any other citizen of this country. After a year's residence he acquired the right to the franchise. He had everything in the way of citizenship rights that any Canadian-born citizen had. The only distinction was [DOT] that, in certain clearly defined events, under the Immigration Act he was subject to deportation within five, years. What were those events? One was the health condition mentioned yesterday in the debate: if, for instance, he appeared to be insane and had to be confined to a mental institution, or if he was convicted of offences involving moral turpitude. Under those conditions he was liable to be deported within five years. But within that time he had the rights of citizenship. Therefore let it not be said that the position of a British subject, if section 10, subsection 1 comes into effect in its present form, will be the same as it is now or as it has been for the past twenty-nine years; because that is not so; that has not been the law.
Let us be very careful about immigration. I would be the last person in the world to suggest that we ought to relax in any way the restrictions of the kind referred to in the Immigration Act. Certainly we do not want the kind of restrictions to which I have referred to be relaxed, and we must be very careful in our selection of immigrants at the source. But I am putting this forward to
Canadian Citizenship

establish what I think ia an incontrovertible position, that if you enact section 10 in its present form you are taking from a British subject coming to this land from another part of the commonwealth something which he has at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The right of citizenship after a year. All the rights of citizenship. Yes, his position is the same as that of a Canadian-born subject-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What right is taken away? Name one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The right of citizenship in this country. The minister cannot, simply by saying to me, "Well, citizenship up to this time has been spelled with a small 'c' and in this bill it will be spelled with a big 'C' ", answer the point that I am making.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What right of citizenship is taken away?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has every right of a citizen at the present time. He has the right to call himself a citizen of Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What right of citizenship is taken away?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has the right to call himself a Canadian, because he has had all the rights of citizenship in the country. It is true that he was liable to deportation if he was admitted to a mental institution or had committed some offence involving moral turpitude; but he was a citizen and he was a Canadian.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are in committee now. What right of citizenship does this bill take away from British subjects?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The right of citizenship; that is what. He has the right to-day to call himself a citizen of Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: After one year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: After one year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the hon. member's authority for that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister need authority for that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I certainly do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let the minister look at the present legislation. A British citizen coming to this country at the present time has every privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And he continues to have.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Including the privilege of the franchise, which any Canadian citizen has had. From this time on, if this bill with section 10, subsection 1, in its present form is adopted, there will be a distinction between a Canadian-born British subject and a British subject coming from another part of the commonwealth. To every intent and purpose, except for the mere trifle of filing a declaration of intention, a British subject from another part of the commonwealth is an alien applying for citizenship.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Why should he not be considered as an alien?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you reduce to the vanishing point the privileges which go with partnership in the commonwealth, if you do not put any store upon the benefits which go with being a British subject in the commonwealth, then all right, do not give the British subject any advantage here. But if it means anything to be a British subject-


Joseph Arthur Lesage: What does it mean?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it means anything to
enjoy in other parts of the commonwealth the privileges which the laws of the other parts of the commonwealth extend to British subjects, then I say that there is good and ample reason why we should accord a special status to British subjects coming to this country to ' make this their home, a status over and above that accorded to those coming from alien lands.


Mr. GLEN:: Would the hon. member abolish the period for acquiring domicile as a British subject in this country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The point which the minister has raised is a quite proper one, if I may say so, and the amendment I intend to move will deal with it.
I have said something about the effects of this bill in depriving a British subject who comes from other parts of the commonwealth of rights which he now enjoys, rights which come to him automatically because he is a British subject, and as introducing a discrimination which I think is bound to create feelings of humiliation. Let us examine what I have suggested in the light of the purposes, as I conceive them, of the five years' residence, to which I referred earlier. I suggested that the reason we want a five-year Canadian domicile in the case of applicants for Canadian citizenship is that we wish to be sure that they have absorbed our ways, that they are capable of fitting in with our democratic conceptions

Canadian Citizenship
and that they have. indicated a capacity for assimilation. Apply this to the British subject. First of all, what about language? A British subject coming from some other part of the commonwealth obviously speaks one of the two official languages of this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not necessarily.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not if he comes from Papua.'


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the second place, I
suggest that a British subject coming from the self-governing nations of the commonwealth does not. need schooling in democracy. He is accustomed to looking at things from the point of view of the British traditional attitude toward democracy, the rights of the individual, his rights before the law, his right to equality before the laiw with all other citizens, his right to be self-governing, to determine the government by his vote at the ballot box. Surely we do not have to establish a school to train people with that background in the kind of thing we are proposing to establish by way of education for people coming from other lands.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: What about the Americans?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Answer that one yourself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member is
suggesting that we ought to extend reciprocal citizenship to citizens of the United States, I do not know whether I am prepared to go that far, but if he will put the suggestion forward the house will perhaps give it serious consideration.
I return now to the answer I sought to give a moment ago to a question suggested by an hon. member opposite, when I said that it does means something to be a British subject-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -when we have regard to the advantages which are extended to British subjects in other parts of the commonwealth. I must take issue with the Secretary qf State in his suggestion that, after all, the position is the same in the other parts of the commonwealth; that after all, this bill is just about the same law as they have there. If that is the impression the committee has I believe a good deal of correction is needed. These other nations of the commonwealth, with the exception of Ireland, have not yet enacted anything comparable with our citizenship bill. In Australia, for instance, in New Zealand, in the United Kingdom, they have no citizenship act. They have legislation there in relation to the franchise. If the franchise is a badge of citizenship, then the situation is that a
definite privilege is extended by the laws of these member nations of the [DOT] commonwealth to British subjects. A Canadian going from Canada to take up residence there has a definite advantage in that regard over persons coming from alien lands. That certainly is an advantage and I hope we do not want to deprive any British subject of comparable advantages here. Even though we were to leave them the franchise there for a time, we still would have a discrimination if section 10 (1) is adopted in its present form, and that, I suggest, is an indefensible discrimination. How long can we expect our partners in the commonwealth to extend privileges to us as Canadians if we are not prepared to deal with them on a reciprocal basis.
In South Africa there is the aliens act of 1937. South Africa there makes a clear distinction between British subjects and those from alien lands; and it is so even in the case of the Irish legislation, to which reference was made earlier in the debate on the second reading, the Irish nationality and citizenship act of 1936 and the aliens act of 1935, which on the face of them appear to suggest that Irish citizens are not British subjects from that' time on, and that British subjects are not to have special recognition of their status in Ireland. But as I tried to point out earlier, the aliens exemption order of 1935 was passed on the heels of that legislation to give to British subjects from other parts of the commonwealth reciprocal treatment. If this legislation is adopted, I suggest that you carry Ireland a step further out of the commonwealth.
I am offering an amendment to section 10 (1) of the bill. I am proposing that in paragraph (c) in line 25 there be inserted certain new words. The amendment is:
That section 10 (1) (c) be amended by inserting after the word "war" in line 25, the following words:
"or is a British subject within the meaning of section 28."
The effect of that amendment would be that in section 10 (1) (c), where we now have an exception made for certain classes of persons in reducing the residence requirement in their case from five years to one year, we add to the exceptions the case of a British subject coming from another part of the commonwealth. I say coming from another part of the commonwealth, because in the amendment we introduce the words "or is a British subject within the meaning of section 28", and that is the section which confines "commonwealth" to those nations within schedule 1 of the bill.
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: For purposes of clarification, does the hon. gentleman intend that by thus reducing the period from five years to one year, once that year has elapsed, a British subject cannot be deported? ~


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amendment would have no such effect whatever. I made it clear that we are not here dealing with the Immigration Act at all. I said that my own personal view yas that I should be the last to advocate the removal of the restrictions to which I have referred, those causes upon which the right of deportation arises.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So that you would deport citizens of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am prepared to say that anyone coming in must comply with all the proper restrictions in regard to health and obedience to our laws as they are now set forth in principle in the Immigration Act, and anyone coming here must be guided accordingly for the term of the five-year requirement under the Immigration Act. If the time comes when .it is possible to determine sufficiently the health problems that were referred to yesterday, and to determine them in a shorter period, well and good. But I am not suggesting for a moment that the grounds for deportation under the Immigration Act should be reduced, because I think it is reasonable that people who have committed and have been convicted of offences involving moral turpitude, or who have become confined to institutions for the mentally . ill, should in proper cases be deported. I am not prepared to see that legislation used, however -and I wish to make this clear-in order to deport people who are out of employment through no fault of their own.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But you would deport a British subject who had acquired citizenship under your amendment.	*


Donald Methuen Fleming: Certainly, if that citizen commits an offence involving moral turpitude during the five-year period of the Immigration Act, or is confined to a mental institution. I do not suggest the abolition of these requirements. I am contending that the individual must establish domicile here. We are not proposing that this should open the door of citizenship to anyone who does not intend to make this his permanent home. He must establish domicile under the definition of "domicile" which we have in section 2, and that requirement is buttressed by section 10 (1) (g), which provides that he must, if his application is granted, indicate his intention of residing permanently in Canada.
rMr. Fleming.]
Let us remember that in the bill there is already reserved to the minister the right to revoke citizenship in certain cases. If it is sound in principle to revoke citizenship in the cases referred to in this bill, why should it not be possible to revoke citizenship within the period referred to in the Immigration Act for the causes I have mentioned, namely, conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude or confinement to a mental institution. I do not see the slightest distinction in principle between the case referred to by the minister and that provided for elsewhere in the act as a ground for the revocation of citizenship.
I call attention to section 21, subsection 1 (c), where we find this provision:
21. (1) The governor in council may order that any person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if, upon a report from the minister, he is satisfied that the said person either
(c) has, within five years after becoming a Canadian citizen, been sentenced by any court in Canada to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months.
There you have the same thing. A sentence of twelve months is ground for revocation of the certificate of citizenship under the bill introduced by the minister. Is there, then, any difficulty on the part of the minister, in the face of that, in accepting the principle that a Canadian citizen within the five-year period referred to in the Immigration Act should be liable to loss of certificate of Canadian citizenship if, he commits an offence involving moral turpitude or is confined in an institution for the mentally ill?
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Margaret Penelope Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Marion Cruick-shank Isaac.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Malvina Angelina Seguin Gascon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Nora Kathleen Loury Cheverton.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Elsie Fisher Armitage.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Florence Mabel McIntosh Simpson.-Mr. Maybank.

Canadian Wheat Board
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Francis Gordon Sullivan.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Minerva Jane Cory.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Esther Irene Lind Booth.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Katie Hoffman Pinsky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Dorothy Adams Acer McDougall.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Helen Douglas Stewart Rankin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Olive Esther Rose Ewen.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Andrew Prem-Das.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Reginald Wesley Titcombe.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Hilda Forsey Pearce Johnston.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Ann Low Fuller Mitchell.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Marguerita St. Catherine McKeigan Guillevin.-Mr. May-bank.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Bessie Goldrosen Green.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Audrey Helen Jackson Maxham.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Frank Russell Yeoman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Florence Joy McGibbon Lafleur.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Isobel Cameron McLaggan Oswald.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of John Louis Charlebois.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Georgina Hylda Swaffield McKenzie.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Dorothy Ellen Cope Kimpton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Charles Patrick Kavanagh.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Irene Gertrude Carry Staley.-Mr. Maybank.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.-Mr. Pair.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Before this motion is dealt with, Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the hon. gentleman, and without in any way at this moment expressing the attitude of the government with regard to the matter may I say that in all probability next session a committee will be set up to
deal with the elections act. So that in view of that possibility it does seem to me that it would be better to let this matter stand over until next session. Then, in the event a committee is set up, which I expect will be the case, this matter could be referred to that committee for consideration.


Robert Fair: With the definite understanding that this bill will be brought in and considered next session I am agreeable to the suggestion made by the Secretary of State.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): May I say there can be no definite understanding. There will be such action as may be possible in view of the circumstances prevailing at the time.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman may have the privilege of withdrawing his bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Bill withdrawn and order discharged.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River) moved the second reading of bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board Act was passed in 1935 after practically everybody in Canada, I believe, became satisfied that our marketing system, that is the grain exchange, had broken down. It was found necessary to pass that legislation; and while to a certain extent it is satisfactory to most farmers, there are still, some things in it which should be rectified. In order to rectify some of these matters, I have on more than one occasion introduced the present amendment to the act. The relevant paragraphs of section 8 read as follows:
8. It shall be the duty of the board-
(h)	to give effect to any order in council that may be passed with respect to its operations;
(i)	in selling and disposing of wheat as by this act provided, to utilize and employ without discrimination such marketing agencies, including commission merchants, broilers, elevator men, exporters and other persons engaged in or operating facilities for the selling and handling of wheat, as the board in its discretion may determine;
(j)	to offer wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels: Provided that the board may, if in its opinion any existing agencies are not operating satisfactorily. take such steps as it deems expedient to establish, utilize and employ its own or other marketing agencies or channels.
This ties the wheat board down to using the established channels. It is my opinion that
Canadian Wheat Board
[Stage Direction]
this should not be so, that we are keeping in existence in Winnipeg an organization which is detrimental to agriculture, to farmers all over Canada and to other citizens of this country. Therefore I have introduced the following amendment, striking out paragraphs (h), (i) and (j) and substituting the following:
(h)	subject to the provisions of paragraph (i) of this section, to give effect to any order in council that may be passed with respect to its operations;
(i)	in selling and disposing of wheat as by this act provided, to employ such methods, consistent with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, as will not involve the payment, directly or indirectly, of any commission or other remuneration to commission merchants, brokers or other marketing agencies.
The direct purpose of this bill is to eliminate the payment of commissions to brokers or other individuals, but the indirect purpose of the amendment is to do away forever with the grain exchange at Winnipeg. We consider that this step is long overdue and that the sooner it is taken the better. Those who profit by the operations of the Winnipeg grain exchange have boosted it as the best method of disposing of our grain. I am not satisfied that it is the best method, and intend to prove this before I have finished. Under the grain exchange system we have had grain prices going up or down as much as twenty cents a bushel without any actual change in the supplies of grain available within the country. It is quite certain that as long as a condition of this kind is allowed to exist, the farming industry cannot be on a sound or solid basis. During the first three or four months of each crop year, commencing August 1 of each year, we find from seventy to seventy-five per cent of the grain delivered to market; but because of the hedging of this grain as well as the selling of millions of bushels of paper wheat, that is wheat which does not exist in the country, wheat never sown and never grown, we find that grain prices have been forced down considerably. As a result, the very farmers who are most in need of higher prices ' have been compelled to take lower prices and sooner or later forced off their farms.
Most of these futures were bought by speculators, many of whom did not know the tricks of the grain trade; and unless those speculators were in attendance it was not possible for the grain exchange to carry on very successfully. We find that many types of citizens, including farmers, workers, teachers, lawyers, doctors and even preachers were in the grain exchange for the express purpose of making money. But in many instances we find that ninety per cent or ninety-five per 
cent of those people were skinned, and were losers in this racket. It would seem, however, that the racket is legalized, and one wonders why many other rackets in the country are not legalized.
For instance, let us consider the black market in meat, which exists at the present time. A good deal of fuss is being made about this racket. Why is it not legalized, if the grain exchange is legalized? The futures system, we find, provides protection for the banks, the millers and the elevator companies; but it entirely disregards the interests of the producers. In my opinion it is the interests of those producers which should be protected, first of all, because if we have not food we find that things do not go along very well in this or in any other country.
Those who claim that trading in futures is a satisfactory manner of marketing our grain should explain, before this debate concludes, why under a system of futures trading away back in the thirties our grain on the Winnipeg grain exchange went down to 38i cents a bushel. In my part of the country this meant a price of 19J cents a bushel for the best grain grown anywhere in the world.
When that condition existed many thousands of farmers lost the savings of a lifetime, and were out on the road without even their farms on which to live. These men were told tha/t futures trading provides markets. This is not a fact. When Mr. Turgeon made his investigation he, too, said that it was not a fact. This is what I find at page 183 of the report of the royal grain inquiry commission of 1938:
I have mentioned the "imperfections" of the futures trading system, and I know that, in the eyes of many, the greatest of these is its dependence upon the speculator. And the fact must be faced that this dependence, while not absolute, is substantial not only in Winnipeg but in Liverpool, as the evidence shows. It has well been said that there are only three classes of buyers in the wheat market: (1) those who have immediate need of the wheat; (2) hedgers who buy to insure their transactions, and (3) speculators who buy and hold in the hope of making profits but also at the risk of making losses. When buyers of this last class are absent, or are present only in small numbers, the market becomes weak and prices fall. This was the situation which existed in 1931 when the government was urged to send somebody into the market to take the speculator's place, and the situation was met by the institution of stabilization measures.
Then, again, the opinion of the three wheat pool organizations was placed before the royal commission in this way, at page 39 of the same report:
We are satisfied that the futures market does cause fluctuations not justified by the supply and demand for wheat, and this fluctuating price

Canadian Wheat Board
does not necessarily reflect world value. Indeed, it would appear to be true to say that the futures market is not a system of intelligeiit merchandising; it is merely an example of irresponsible mob blundering. This tendency toward instability in price, which many farmers are convinced is aggravated by speculation, is one of the most serious indictments numerous farmers level against the futures market.
I may say the wheat pools are still of the same opinion, because during the past winter and spring -months those wheat pools, and practically every other farm organization in western Canada, passed resolutions demanding that the grain exchange at Winnipeg be closed and the present wheat board be continued in operation. I believe the government also agrees that the grain exchange should be -closed, because away back in 1935, when conditions forced them to, the w-heat board was set up, and is still in operation.
It is perhaps also worthy of note to know that all the grain exchanges in the world were closed durin-g the war. If it is necessary and if it is good business to close those exchanges during the war, then why not in peace time as well because, while we have had a good deal of trouble in winning the war, the winning of the peace may be a bigger problem than some of us at present realize?
In 1942, according to the best information ,L have been able to obtain, there were on the Winnipeg grain exchange 109 operators, 85 of whom traded in futures and 24 in cash wheat. I understand that for many years a number of those men have been subsidized by the farmers, directly or indirectly, w-hich^ ever way you wish to put it, and that they are waiting for those happy days to come back again-. Many of them are collecting commissions on grain they never sold. This is not -right. All along they have been collecting on grain that some members of the organizations sold, but also in the past they have collected on paper sales.
I think it is time this subsidization of a number of parasites should be done away with. Let them find employment while it can be found; let them get off the backs of the farmers where, at the present time, they have attached themselves as leeches. It is important that at this time Canadian farmers have purchasing power, because I believe we shall find in the near future we shall be scrambling again for markets for those industries operating in Canada. There is no better market for Canadian products than that found on our farms to-day. For that reason, therefore, it is important that the farmers have purchasing power.
Back in 1938 when the farm machinery industry was under investigation we were told 63260-68
that 70 per cent of farm machinery was being sold in western Canada. If we out there do not have more money to buy, then Canadian manufacturers will have to look somewhere else for markets.
Some of those who are agitating for the existence of the grain exchange tell us that we are ten cents to twelve cents a bushel better off because of the operations of the exchange. However, according to information I secured only a short time ago, the operations of the futures market means that we are getting ten to twelve cents a bushel less taken from us than before the operations of that system. If we were told, or if those in charge were good enough to tell us the cost to us of the operations of the exchange, outside of commissions being paid, I feel that many of us would be greatly surprised.	,
Fluctuations in grain prices in past years have constituted the second greatest cause of the farmers' defeat. Drought was the greatest, and price fluctuation was the second greatest. The farmers are continually gambling against odds against which they have no protection. We have dry weather, wet weather, frost, rust, hail, grasshoppers and several other pests. Then we have legislation which is permitted to stand on our statu books; and one more pest in this industry is that of gambling on the grain exchange. Sc f'at again I say: Remove this bloodsucker lrox_ the backs of the farmers of Canada.
Many commissions, I believe eignteen a all, have endorsed the principle of trading in g.. -in futures. I am not at all surprised at tha because in the past certain people have endorsed the principles of slavery, child labour, and longer hours of work, as many as twelve hours a day in some instances. It is time that we brought our system up to date. These things are not allowed any longer, and we should remove one more injustice by doing away forever with the operations of the Winnipeg grain exchange.
I could go on for quite a long time, but I expect there will be many other hon. members who will want to speak on this bill, including many who will want to talk it out rather than give it a fair democratic trial. When the arguments have been presented perhaps later on in the debate I -shall have an opportunity to answer the objections that will be raised. With that I must take my seat and see what other hon. members have to say.
Mr. R. N. JUTRAS (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced at the last session I tried very hard to take part in the discussion but I was unable to do so because of the time limit. It came up on a

Canadian Wheat Board

Tuesday last session just as it has at this session. I am gratified to have an opportunity of saying a few words on this question which I consider to be of great importance, especially to the farmers of western Canada.
I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has just said. I have made quite a study of this subject. At the time he introduced the bill for first reading I was surprised to note that most of his time was taken up in condemning the grain exchange as such. As far as I can see, this bill deals exclusively with the Canadian wheat board; it is an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I am not unmindful of what implications there may be from the operations of the board that affect the grain exchange, but I think we should be more concerned with the effect that this bill will have on the Canadian wheat board than oil the effect it may have on the Winnipeg grain exchange.
There are various ways of dealing with the grain exchange as such, and I am certainly not of the opinion that the onus of closing that exchange should be placed upon the Canadian wheat board. I think all hon. members will agree that this board has done a magnificent job since the start of the war. We should be careful before we start tampering with the organization or the administration of the board.
Before dealing further with this contentious matter, I should like to place on record a few words which I feel will meet with the approval of all hon. members, particularly those who come from western Canada. I wish to refer briefly to the manner in which the officials of the Canadian wheat board have discharged their duties and to commend particularly the chairman of the board for the efficient and obliging manner in which he has discharged his responsibilities as Chief commissioner of the board since 1938. All those who have had dealings with Mr. Mclvor will appreciate the full implications of my remark. To my mind, he has done a great job since the date of his appointment, and more particularly during the war. One has but to look at the reports of the wheat board to appreciate the extent of his responsibilities, fn spite of his heavy duties as chief commissioner he has agreed repeatedly to serve on various committees. Hon. members will have noticed that he was the first to speak at the conference in London. He has been serving as chairman of the combined food board since January, 1943, and he has served his country well on the emergency grain transportation committee since 1943. After eight years as

chief commissioner he is still the affable business man, anxious to help his fellowmen and keenly interested in showing a favourable balance sheet at the end of the year. It is no accident that he enjoys the confidence of his organization and his fellowmen.
I wish also to commend Doctor Grindley, as well as many others whom I do not happen to know personally but whose good work has attracted our attention. I should like to refer particularly to the field inspectors in my province. They deserve commendation for their responsible sense of duty and their sincere desire to have the administration of the board above reproach.


Mr. BURTON:: Why not compliment the farmers who raised the wheat?


René Jutras: I shall come to that
afterward.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not stick to the subject?


René Jutras: I am perfectly in order and I resent that remark very much. If this bill does not deal with the Canadian wheat board, I do not know what it deals with. The trouble with most of the discussion so far has been that it referred to the grain exchange and there is no mention whatsoever in the bill of the grain exchange. Then the hon. member remarked that this bill would be talked out. Surely he was not referring to the present speaker because I certainly cannot be accused of having taken too much of the time of this house. Those who say, "No, no," certainly cannot say the same. If the hon. member is seized at all with the importance of this bill he would not try to rush it through in one or even two hours. If the bill is so insignificant that it can be rushed through the house in half an hour or in an hour and a half, it is not worth considering. If it has any value at all it should be considered for at least a few hours and more than one member on the opposite side of the house given an opportunity of discussing it.


Joseph William Burton: All I was asking you to do was to give the farmers a little credit.


René Jutras: I shall come to the farmers in due course.


Joseph William Burton: They are always left at the tail end.


René Jutras: I think I am quite capable of organizing my own speech, if you do not mind.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: You must admit that the bill has been before the house for two years.

Canadian Wheat Board


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is talking about what?


René Jutras: I resent the fact that every time we rise to say something we are accused of talking out a bill. I do not think any hon. member should be permitted to impute a motive like that, especially at the beginning of a discussion.
I was referring to the Canadian wheat board and I repeat that that board has done a magnificent job. There is no one more grateful to the Canadian wheat board than the farmers of western Canada. My reason for rising tonight is to defend the farmers of western Canada and to see that there is no tinkering with the Canadian wheat board so as to impair its efficiency. I ask hon members to bear with me for'a while and be quiet. I know I have had to stay silent when hon. members across the chamber were speaking. I have had to put up with that kind of thing and I ask that they give me the same courtesy that I
ive to them.
was referring to the field inspectors of the C^nalian what board. I am very glad to give them iredit for the work they have done and for the 'se of duty they have shown. Theirs has been . big achievement and is in part responsible . *r the confidence which the Canadian whea' board enjoys to-day among the producers western Canada. These officials are out on V road every day inspecting the various elev. '*ors and talking to the farmers coming to th. elevators, and it is only fair that we shoula -ecognize the good ,	'- *K0v have done. I . meat again that
it is no sn.	'-'vernent, an" we must give
them credit if they ha*_ ''-u ** to win the confidence of the producer.
Coming now to the bill itself, I t ve u A all the speeches that have been made n this subject at the last session. Very little was said about the Canadian wheat board; in .'act there were only two or three references to t. There was a long dissertation condemning tht Winnipeg grain exchange, but the other speakers who followed the sponsor of the bill confined themselves to extolling the great humanitarian and social benefits flowing from the grain exchange. We should be concerned primarily with the wheat board itself. I propose first to examine the amendment and then to analyse briefly the financial report of the Canadian wheat board.
The first contention of the sponsor of the bill is that it will, to use his own words, free the officials of the wheat board from some of the restrictions which have been imposed upon
them. The new proposed paragraph (i), which was read a moment ago provides that the board is:
to employ such methods ... as will not involve the payment, directly or indirectly, of any commission or other remuneration to commissioned merchants, brokers or other marketing agencies.
In other words, this would compel the Canadian wheat board to do its own marketing without having the privilege of asking the odd elevator man or brokerage company to transact some business for it. The explanatory note is quite clear on that, and the intent of the sponsor is also made clear in the explanatory note, which states:
This bill is designed to eliminate the prevalent practice of the Canadian wheat board of paying commissions to agents in connection with the sale of wheat and to free the board to conduct its sale operations without engaging and paying for such unnecessary service.
Those are strong words. To say that the Canadian wheat board is paying for unnecessary service is certainly, to my mind, a reflection on the officials of the board. Whether it would free or restrict the board is, to say the least, a debatable point. In the original act of 1935, we find this provision:
The board is to offer continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels: provided that the board may, if in its opinion any existing agencies are not operating satisfactorily, take such steps as it deems expedient to establish, utilize and employ its own or other marketing agencies or channels.
Consequently, if the board feel they are paying for unnecessary services they have the right to establish their own agencies to take care of that situation. By what stretch of the imagination can it be thought that it would give the board more freedom to cut out this -^vision which gives the board the authority to establish their own channels? The intention of the amendment is to cut out this provision, and then' it is claimed that the board would have more freedom.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Has not the board to pay these commissions whether it likes to or not?


René Jutras: It does not have to, because the board may employ its own or other marketing agencies or channels if, in its opinion, any existing agencies are not operating satisfactorily. That provision is quite clear in the act, and that provision the amendment would cut out.
It comes down to this: Either my hon. friends believe that the officials are not using that provision of the act, or they have a different interpretation of that section. I
Canadian Wheat Board

cannot read anybody's mind. I can only take the bill for what it is worth. We could go on discussing this for days, and I sincerely believe that it is our duty to have the officials of the board appear before a committee where they could be examined and give us the benefit of their experience. Then we could find out how they have been acting with respect to this section and how it has been interpreted. But with the bill before the house this cannot be done and we have to depend on the explanatory notes attached to the bill.
I would respectfully submit that we should hear from the officials exactly what is meant, for instance, by marketing facilities. The amendment refers almost exclusively to the marketing agencies, and paragraph (i) provides that the only restriction'shall apply to the selling and disposing of wheat. That is an involved question. Exactly what is meant by marketing agencies is not clear to me. I have tried to find out exactly what is meant by it, but it is quite debatable. It would appear that the facilities used by the board at the present time are numerous and diversified. For instance, the Canadian wheat board, is, I believe, now using the facilities of the country elevators, the small and large mills, jthe terminal elevators, the government elevators as well as the private elevators, the pools, the United Grain Growers Limited, the terminals owned by the national harbours board, and the brokerage facilities of the shippers and importers. There is no doubt that the question of storage facilities, handling facilities, purchasing facilities and marketing facilities is interrelated and in many instances very difficult to seggregate. I do not believe it is the intention of this bill that the wheat board should go out and buy all the country elevators and put civil servants in every one of them to purchase the grain from the farmers, because, as I pointed out, the amendment refers more particularly to the selling and disposing of wheat. However, it must be remembered that the elevators are used at the present time to complete certain transactions of sale. For instance, I have in mind a country miller who buys wheat from the wheat board; this wheat often never leaves the community; it is bought there and sold to the miller right on the spot. In that ease, it could be argued that the ' elevator man has been used as a marketing agent. I am just pointing this out to show that the question is an intricate one, and a wrong policy might lead to serious consequences.
The allegation has also been made that large sums of money can be saved. Naturally

when it comes to saving money I am 100 per cent in favour of the intent. However, there is always the danger that in trying to save money you may spend more than you actually save, especially when it has to do wuth setting up a large and cumbersome government agency or government organization.
I took the trouble to analyse the report of the Canadian wheat board. I have here the report of the board for the crop year 1943-44. This is the statement of operations on the crop account, western division, for the year ended July 31, 1944, and it is the last report, or at least the most recent I have. We find that the wheat acquired by the board amounted to 293,000,000 bushels, at a cost, in round figures, of $354 million. _ The surplus on cash wheat transactions is shown as $23 million. We now come to the expenses, and I bring these in with the object of trying to find exactly where we could save large sums of money. As I said before, if it can be done I am 100 per cent behind it, but before tinkering with this organization I should like to have some facts or figures on which to base a decision. In the report the expenses are given. The carrying charges are $4,000,000. Other items are: additional freight on wheat, $900,000; then, handling stop off division charges and so on, $2,000; drying and reconditioning, $19,000; 'brokerage charges, $115,000; administration and general expenses, $436,000, making a total of close to $5,000,000. The largest item of expense is, of course, the carrying charges, and as hon. members know, this represents the storage of wheat carried at country elevators at a rate determined under the tariff of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, plus haulage, and allowance for interest on the grain which is financed by the elevator company until it reaches the delivery point where it is turned over to the Canadian wheat board. The terminal storage rates are also fixed by the board of grain commissioners, and I believe the mill elevators take the rate that is nearest to the terminal elevators. So that I do not see how we could effect a big saving in this item of carrying charges. I have not been able to probe deeply into these items of brokerage charges and administrative and general expenses, but I would fancy that there is probably more than meets the eye in those items. If it is only $115,000 which we could save by setting up a huge organization, I am quite sure that in the long run we .would not save any money but that actually it would be more costly to the wheat board; and naturalise if it is costlier to the wheat board, eventually it will be costlier to the producer,

Canadian Wheat Board
to the farmer, because at the present time it is doubtful if you could hire more than seven or eight good marketing agents out of that appropriation of $115,000.
I have been referring to expenses, and for the benefit of those who are not from the western provinces I hasten to make it quite clear that those expenses do not represent losses and that they do not involve any liability to the treasury or the government, because the board has been operating at a profit. I do not know exactly how far back, but at any rate ever since 1940 it has been in the happy position of distributing money on participation certificates held by the farmers. As a matter of fact, distributions in the 1940-41 crop year amounted to a little over S26 million; in 1941-42, to $15 million; in 1942-43 the amount rose to $19i million; and for 1943-44 the figures are not yet available, but I assume the amount is something like that of 1942-43. Actually a total of $60 million has been distributed to the farmers since the operation of the Canadian wheat board; and I repeat that these figures reflect a surplus, so that actually there is no cost to the government or the treasury. All administrative and general expenses are, of course, chargeable against the proceeds of the wheat. It explains why the board has been successful, when one considers the amount of money that has been distributed. Exactly where we should bring about such a change as has been mentioned by the mover of the bill is difficult to detect. However, I still maintain that it would probably be a wise thing to go over these reports with the officials of the department and get a full story on the subject. As a matter of fact, the Canadian wheat board has not lately been before a committee, and I believe it is almost due for an airing there. I therefore strongly urge that this be done.
I wish now to refer briefly to another angle of the situation. I shall turn to the administrative aspect and the experience of the past. In this bill the board is asked to do it own marketing exclusive of existing facilities. It is probably wise to remember that the pools attempted this at one time and abandoned it later, to use the existing facilities. I am given to understand that they now use the existing marketing facilities. I went back and read the debates that took place in this house in 1932 and 1933, when the then prime minister was going to blast his way through the markets of the world. Many pertinent things were said then and there is no doubt that the failure of the venture was not due to lack of energetic enterprise on his part. However, the fact remains that even the dynamic personality of
the then prime minister did not make much of a hole in the wall of determination of the old w'orld. I am quite sure that the country would not like a recurrence of the McFarland episode, and it is not inappropriate to be cautioned by it. I am given to understand that all grain handling companies, including the three pools and United Grain Growers Limited, use the existing facilities. Whether it is significant or not, it should at least arouse our curiosity.
When we consider the marketing situation,
I submit that it would be dangerous to use the last few years as a criterion.
Everyone knows that it is a relatively easy matter at the present time to market wheat, as the minister pointed out in his statement at the time he announced the policy of the government on wheat. The European countries, nearly all of them our allies, are buying out of necessity and to a large extent on credit. Furthermore, the second world war came to an end with Canadian wheat pro-. ducers in a particularly strong marketing position. Not only have the general disruption and bad weather reduced production in all areas, but the Australian and South African crop failures and a similar crop failure in the Argentine have left Canada and the United States as the only countries in the export market for wheat. This has coincided with the release of pent-up demands in liberated areas, so that there is no problem of finding markets to-day.
It is, however, very hard to say how long this situation will last. The European countries are now sowing all the wheat they can and it will take many years before they have money to pay. As I pointed out, we and the United States are now the only two wheat exporting countries in the world. It is to be hoped that the policy of the government, which is to offer wheat at a low price as compared with world prices, will encourage those countries which were not producing wheat before the thirties to revert to their original position before that time. The government assures them that we shall keep our prices around $1.55. However, this is a mere hope and we do not know what those countries will do, whether they will leave us the job of producing wheat, or whether they will attempt to produce their own.
It is well to remember that the success of that policy outside Canada will depend in no small measure on the support it receives within the country. The government gives the assurance that it will keep the price around $1.55, but it is seriously handicapped in the eyes of importers when political groups and various grain companies and the leader of the
Canadian Citizenship

opposition (Mr. Bracken) demand that producers be paid world prices. They, too, know the diversity of politics in a democratic country and they appreciate as well as the leader of the opposition the public appeal of the dollar.
I felt sure that the leader of the opposition, with his background and experience, would be the first to appreciate the wisdom of offering wheat at slightly lower than world prices. Apparently however, that was to be but the beginning of my surprise, because shortly afterwards he rose and demanded that the ceiling be taken away completely on all farm products. If I had time at my disposal I could go on...


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lots of time.


James Horace King: I am sorry to have to
interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the hour reserved for private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the business prior to six o'clock.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens-Mr. Martin-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford) in the chair.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I
say a word now by way of explanation of the purpose and effect of the amendment. It will be observed that the amendment is introduced into certain excepting words in parapraph (c). In other words, where the section now requires one year's residence in Canada immediately preceding the date of application and then goes on. with two exceptions, to require four years' residence within the six years preceding the application, the amendment proposes to add to the two exceptions now contained in the paragraph a third exception. The two exceptions already provided for are these. First is the case where the applicant has served outside Canada in the armed forces of Canada during time of war; second is the applicant who is the wife of and who resides in Canada with a Canadian citizen. The amendment proposes to add another exception, in the case where the applicant is a British subject within the meaning of section 28 of the act.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: By naturalization.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A British subject within
section 28 of the act, which means a British subject whether by birth or by naturalization coming from another part of the commonwealth, the nations of the commonwealth being set forth in the first schedule to the act. If that amendment is accepted, in my submission it will preserve the proper recognition to which British subjects from the other member nations of the commonwealth are entitled by reason of being subjects of the same king.
I have dwelt, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that this is introduced as a third exception. Will you please note that already in the act there are two exceptions to the principle for which the Secretary of State has been contending during this debate. He ' has argued that you cannot reduce the five-year period for two reasons, as I apprehend his remarks; first, that it is necessary that the five-year period be preserved because there are certain incidents attached to that five-year period of residence under the Immigration Act, and, second, that it would be an unheard-of thing to take away his citizenship from one who is a Canadian citizen. In view of what I said this afternoon I do not know that I need deal further with these two observations of the minister. Suffice it to say at this point, as to the first one, that the incidents applied by the Immigration Act Will continue to apply in all cases, and therefore have no relevance whatever to the matter now under discussion with reference to section 10 (1) (c). In the second place, as to the alleged impossibility of taking away a man's right of citizenship once he has it, I need refer only to section 21, which empowers the Secretary of State, for any one of half a dozen causes or reasons, to deprive one who has received a certificate of Canadian citizenship of that certificate and thus deprive him of his rights as a citizen.
In passing, I observe that the right conferred on the Secretary of State by section 21 (1) (c) to deprive of his citizenship and of his certificate of citizenship one who within five years after becoming a Canadian citizen has been sentenced by any court in Canada to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months, goes much farther than the grounds of deportation now existing under the Immigration Act, in two respects. In the first place, the right given to the minister under section 21 (1) (c) will apply in the cases now provided for in the act for not less than ten years after the legal admission to this country of such person. If he did not acquire domicile at once after coming in, ten years would be the minimum. So that you are no longer dealing simply with the five
[Mr. Jutras.l

Canadian Citizenship
years provided by the Immigration Act; you are adding another five years. Thus the minister is asking this parliament for power to take away from one who has received Canadian citizenship under this act, for a period of ten years after his lawful entry into Canada, all the rights he has acquired as a Canadian citizen. In the second place, that right is vested in the minister in case of conviction for an offence for which the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months. In some courts it does not take a tremendously serious offence to lead to the imposition of a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment. That is going a great deal farther than the relevant sections of the Immigration Act, which are principally sections 40 and 43. It will permit the Secretary of State to take away everything in the way of rights of citizenship that has been acquired by a person under this act because of offences in many cases much less serious than those which must be proved before the Minister of Mines and Resources would have the right to exercise his power of deportation under the Immigration Act.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I yielded to a number of interruptions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Ross Macdonald: With the unanimous consent of the committee the hon. member may continue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank hon. members for their courtesy. So much for what might be said by way of introducing exceptions into the bill. The exceptions are there now; and if it is so important in the view of the minister that you should not have any exceptions cutting across the principle for which he is arguing in the light of the Immigration Act, then how does he justify the two exceptions that already exist in section 10 (1) (c) ? I am simply adding an exception for which there is ample justification and without which a grave injury will be done.
Shall I be repeating if I again remind the committee that an exception exists already in section 10 (1) in respect of British subjects? I pointed out that the exception in the consequences which flow from it is of no importance, because all that is waived in the case of the British subject is the filing of his declaration of intention. Nevertheless there is a distinction drawn in section 10 (1)
(a), and is drawn by the minister himself. What possible justification is there for the exception made in section 10 (1) (a) if the arguments he has been bringing before this chamber for the past two days are sound? There is no justification for it in principle.
I shall leave this question with the committee. The minister has indicated that as far as the government is concerned the British subject with one. year's residence in Canada-no domicile, it will be noticed, but just one year's residence-is good enough to enjoy the great privilege of the franchise; but the British subject to whom is accorded what most of us consider to be the highest right of citizenship, namely the franchise, is, by the minister's argument, not qualified, for some reason or another, to enjoy the other rights of citizenship. Is there any consistency in that? I submit there is none. The committee will notice that my amendment calls for equating the residence requirements under this bill with those already existing under the elections act. In addition, domicile will be required; that is, the intention of making Canada the applicant's permanent home. But if that provision in the elections act which the minister supports is sound, then how can my amendment be other than sound in principle and deserving of the minister's full support?
I have heard some people say, "Well what about communists?" Some communists in Canada to-day are people who hailed from the British isles. Is that a reason for the discrimination which I say this section proposes to apply to all British subjects from other parts of the commonwealth in relation to their present status? It is clear from what has been said already that the full power enjoyed by the government under the Immigration Act is to be continued. There has been no suggestion from any quarter of the house that the Immigration Act should be amended. Section 41 of that act gives the government ample power to deport those who attempt to promote in this country the overthrow of the government by force. That power will still exist. If hon. members will look at section 21 (1) (e) of the bill they will see that the minister has reserved to himself the power, even after the granting of a certificate of citizenship, to revoke that citizenship and to withdraw the certificate in the case of any citizen who shows himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty.
Are not those powers adequate? I submit they are adequate if the government will use them. There is nothing in the contention that because the odd or exceptional immigrant from the British isles has blossomed forth in Canada
Canadian Citizenship

as a communist, that is any reason for requiring all British subjects from other parts of the commonwealth to submit to the same conditions as those from alien lands.
There are several matters which, in conclusion, I shall discuss brieflly. It is abundantly clear that change is made by this section in the present position of the British subject from other parts of the commonwealth who comes to this country. Right now he has all the rights of citizenship spelled with a small "c". This bill proposes to attach conditions which have not hitherto been exacted of him if he wishes to possess Canadian citizenship, with the citizenship now to be spelled with a capital "C".
He has been entitled to call himself a citizen. What is he to be in the five years of residence here? He is still a British subject. No one can take that from him. Thus, there are three classes of people provided for in this bill. There is the Canadian citizen, the man who is here and who has established his rights to become a citizen. There is the man who is an alien, and who continues to be an alien at least for those five years. In the third place, under the present bill there is an inbetween class which is composed of British subjects who have not yet been here for five years. The British subject in this class is not an alien and he is not a Canadian citizen. What is he to call himself? He is still to be a British subject who is waiting to qualify at the end of five years for Canadian citizenship.
Who is there in this chamber who will say that it is a contribution to Canadian citizenship or Canadian unity to say to that man with all his traditions-the same traditions as we have, and the same democratic approach to life as we have-that for that period he is neither flesh nor fowl? I cannot square that with even common sense.
I have pointed out that the principle of section 10 (1) is to place British subjects from another part of the commonwealth and aliens from alien lands, no matter how good they may become as citizens, in precisely the same position under this bill, when coming to Canada and, seeking to become Canadian citizens. That is the principle of section 10 of the bill, and it is a principle which I submit this chamber cannot endorse.
It means that we tell the British subject coming from another part of this commonwealth, "When you enter Canada, so far as your rights as a Canadian citizen are concerned, and your status, the fact that you owe allegiance to the same king as we do makes no difference." That is the significance of
TMr. Fleming.]
section 10. It means that our common allegiance means nothing under this bill. It is, as if we were putting up at the ports of debarkation of ships bearing immigrants to this country a notice to all British subjects from other parts of the commonwealth stating, "Your allegiance to the same sovereign as we have means nothing, when it comes to applying for rights for citizenship in this country." Can this chamber endorse that principle? How can it do so?
What would we lose by accepting this amendment? I submit we would lose nothing. There is no question of principle at stake in permitting a British subject to enjoy rights similar to those he now enjoys. In securing Ms rights to that Canadian citizenship, with domicile, plus one year's residence, and other qualifications, there is no principle at stake. There is likewise no inconvenience at stake- notwithstanding this red herring about the Immigration Act which has been drawn across the discussion of this question.
Moreover I say there is no question of Canadian autonomy at stake. From some of the expressions from some quarters of this chamber one would think that Canada, by recognizing any preferred position for British subjects coming from other parts of the commonwealth over aliens was derogating in some way from its autonomy. How could anything be farther from the fact? Those who are bringing that theme forward are troubling themselves with something in the nature of unwarranted fears and suspicions. There is somewhere an inferiority complex in that attitude. What we need in our approach to these matters is a complex of equality, not an inferiority complex. Let us not go on fighting old battles. In that connection I cannot help remembering a cartoon by the famous cartoonist Low of London which appeared a year or two before the outbreak of war. That was in the days when guarantees were being asked for-guarantees, guarantees, guarantees! Guarantees had been given by the government of the United Kingdom. But some of the continental powers kept on coming back asking for more guarantees. The cartoon showed two British statesmen talking to each other. One said to the other, "Our friends on the continent want us to guarantee the guarantee that we have given to guarantee the guarantee which we have given." And the other gentleman said, "Gad, that's going a little bit too far."
Mr. Chairman, surely this matter of autonomy is played, out. There is no question as to our full equality in the commonwealth. How are we going to use the rights we have? Are we going to use those rights to place British

Canadian Citizenship ,
subjects from other parts of the commonwealth, men now with equal status in the commonwealth, in the invidious position where their allegiance to a common sovereign means nothing when it comes to the matter of securing Canadian citizenship? That is the issue raised by the bill, and that issue is inescapable.
I have asked what we would lose by accepting the amendment. My answer is that we would lose nothing. I ask, in conclusion, what we would lose by enacting the section as it stands. I suggest that, in effect, it reduces the value and store we place in a common allegiance to a common sovereign. I suggest that in putting the alien and the British subject from other parts of the commonwealth in precisely the same position we are saying in effect, "Well, that common allegiance means very little to us." It would seem that it means much less to us than I had hoped it meant. Is this any time to be reducing the value we are putting upon our rights throughout the commonwealth as citizens and as British subjects in common allegiance? This is no time for that. We have nothing to lose and we have everything to gain by strengthening those bonds. As to preserving our autonomy-certainly there is no thought of yielding one inch or iota of our autonomy. Let us exercise some common sense in the use to which we are going to put those rights which we possess as Canadians and as equal partners in the commonwealth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The issue in this debate on section 10 is this: What value do we place upon our common allegiance with our fellow citizens in all parts of the commonwealth?


James Allison Glen: Mr. Chairman, it is an interesting fact in dealing with a matter of this kind that, as one of the thirty-two immigrants in the chamber, in the course of events I am the minister of the department of which the "immigration branch is a part. I remember distinctly when I left the old country, and I suppose I had in my mind then the thought that was expressed by the old Scotsman in his prayer when he said, "I do not ask Thee, Lord, that Thou shouldst give me wealth, all that I ask is that Thou showest me where it is." I may have had that thought in my mind; yet I recall most vividly that when I left Glasgow a very close friend of mine shook my hand and said, "You will not be able to forget Scotland when you get to Canada, but when you get there I want you to be a Canadian." I have endeavoured to be a Canadian. I just introduce that little personal note so that my remarks my not be taken to
be prejudiced and it may be realized that I am dealing with this subject from the point of view of Canada and not from the point of view of the old country or with the idea of there being any discrimination against her.
Therefore I have to take exception to many of the things that have been said by the hon, member for Eglinton in his able presentation. When I came to this country I could have been a member of parliament within one year. After I had lived in Canada for a year and six months in a constituency I had the right to vote and was therefore able to be a representative of the people of Canada. There has been no deprivation of any of my rights during the years I have been here.
The hon. member speaks of the autonomy of Canada, but in my mind there is no question of the autonomy of Canada when it comes to those she will permit to come within her borders. No one can gainsay the right of this parliament to exercise its powers over immigrants and to impose any conditions of entry that it desires. When the hon. member says that this is a matter of strengthening the bonds between this country and the old country by the loosening of the provisions and restrictions against immigrants, I take clear issue with him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not suggest anything of the kind.


James Allison Glen: I understood my hon. friend to say that the passing of the amendment which he has proposed would mean the strengthening of the links1 between the old country and this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure the minister wants my remarks to be correctly understood. What I said in that'respect was that the passing of section 10 (1) (c) in its present form would have the effect of saying to persons from other parts of the commonwealth with, a common allegiance that that allegiance has little or no meaning. I did not suggest that it had any bearing whatever on the Immigration Act. WTiat I said was predicated on the assumption that there will be no change in the Immigration Act. I think he will redall that I supported the provisions of the Immigration Act all the way through.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member, in his explanation has not dealt with what I had in mind. He was dealing with and speaking of the Immigration Act. I was referring to the fact that no immigrant was deprived by this bill of anything that he had not already under
Canadian Citizenship

the Immigration Act. Perhaps I might read the sections of the Immigration Act which bear on the question. Section 2 reads:
In this act, and in all orders in council, proclamations and regulations made hereunder, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a)	"alien" means a person who is not a British subject;
(b)	"Canadian citizen" means
(i)	A person born in Canada who has not become an alien;
(ii)	A British subject who has Canadian domicile.
That is exactly what this bill is doing. The British subject who has Canadian domicile will obtain the full rights of citizenship. What is "domicile?" The definition in the act is as follows:
(e) "domicile" means the place in which a person has his home, or in which he resides, or to which he returns as his place of permanent abode, and does not mean the place where he resides for a mere special or temporary purpose;
(i) Canadian domicile can only be acquired, for the purposes of this act. by a person having his domicile {of at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein within the meaning of this act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For the purposes of this act.


James Allison Glen: For the purposes of this act. If the amendment proposed by the hon. member were to pass there would have to be a corresponding amendment to the Immigration Act in order to have the two acts in conformity with each other. The amendment we are now discussing provides that entry can be allowed and residence take place in one year and that citizenship can then be accomplished. That comes into immediate conflict with the provisions of the Immigration Act that Canadian domicile' can be acquired only after a period of five years. Necessarily it would have to be changed.
I think the hon. member is dealing with two subjects; the question of citizenship is one and the question of domicile is another. He is confused and he has arrived at the conclusion that his amendment will give effect to certain things and at the same time also give effect to the provisions in the regulations which an immigrant must undergo.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit a question?


James Allison Glen: I did not interrupt my hon. friend.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked the minister if he would permit me one question.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The hon. member who is speaking can be interrupted only with his consent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am asking for his
consent. I allowed him to interrupt me with a question.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member dealt with section 21. In reading his amendment I think I could take exception to it on the ground that it is clearly out of order. The amendment contains the words "within the meaning of section 28." We have not dealt with section 28. That section may be altered and amended and the amendment of my hon. friend might not be relevant, I am making no point of that. I do not think the temper of the committee when dealing with a bill of this importance is such that it would permit the raising of any technicality wfith regard to points of order, and for that reason I am not taking exception to it. But I do say to the hon. member that his amendment is entirely out of order.
The hon. member dealt with section 21 which provides that the governor in council may order, upon a report from the minister, that any person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall cease to be- a Canadian citizen if he has, within five years after becoming a Canadian citizen, been sentenced by any court in Canada to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months. The only authority given to the minister is with regard to a person Nwho has landed in Canada and who has been the subject of prosecution and has suffered a penalty of twelve months' imprisonment.
The hon. member did not refer to the restrictions that are necessary under the Immigration Act. Section 3 of that Act contains the prohibited classes. It deals with persons who are mentally defective, diseased persons, persons physically defective, criminals, prostitutes and pimps, procurers, beggars and vagrants, charity immigrants, persons not complying with regulations, public charges, psychopathic inferiority, chronic alcoholism, mentally or physically defective, advocates of force or violence against organized government, members of societies opposed to organized government or advocates of unlawful assault or killing, enemy aliens, spies, conspirators, deported conspirators and illiterates. Exceptions are members of family accompanying a rejected person.
If the amendment proposed by the hon. member is adopted by this committee and we have a British citizen coming into this country 'and being accepted and in one year receiving his citizenship, then, as I said before, the provisions of the Immigration Act will have to be amended. Otherwise these charges could not be laid against an immigrant if he

Canadian Citizenship
became a citizen within one year. Surely Canada has the right to say what class of immigrant shall come here. In these days surely Canada has the right to say what type of citizen shall be admitted, and surety Canada has the right to say that those admitted shall have a sound body and a sound mind. Would the hon. gentleman say that one year would be a sufficient length of time within which to determine the character and physical fitness of the immigrant?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If that is a question my
answer is no.


James Allison Glen: The answer is no. But if the amendment of the hon. member were accepted the restrictions in the Immigration Act would be wiped out. The hon. gentleman did say in the course of his speech that there should be a careful medical inspection of immigrants entering this country and that the regulations should not be relaxed. It is an extraordinary position for him to take because, if his amendment were accepted and the immigrant obtained citizenship at the end of one year, the immigrant could not be deported on the grounds set forth in the Immigration Act. If the hon. member does not take that position, then he takes this, that citizenship having been granted, with all that that means, the citizenship can be revoked.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: The minister does not think that this repeals the Immigration Act? Yet it must if what he says is correct. But of course it does not do that.


James Allison Glen: I am sure that the committee will agree with me that what I have said is the law of the land to-day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And still will be if this
bill is carried.


James Allison Glen: We have heard a good deal in recent years of citizens of this country of Japanese origin who were losing their rights of citizenship, and we have all heard the protests that were made, that after the granting of citizenship these citizens were entitled to stay in Canada. I say definitely and surety that if the amendment of the hon. gentleman were carried it would mean that we would have to revoke the citizenship granted by this country to those immigrants who had been resident for one year in this country.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You have already revoked the citizenship of the Japanese by order in council.	,


James Allison Glen: I have said that that was done, but it has not yet been carried into effect, and we all know the outcry that was made over the revocation of their citizenship.
I have had a report prepared by the officers of the immigration branch with regard to the causes for deportations on the grounds of ill health and for other causes. There was a fifteen-year check made of people deported, and it shows that 14,367 British subjects were deported in the fifteen-year period from April 1, 1930, to March 31, 1945.
In those fifteen years 1,740 were deported following convictions for criminal offences after arrival in Canada.
In the same period 560 were deported on account of mental troubles, and the remaining 12,067 were deported for other reasons. The other causes for deportation are: becoming a public charge, entering Canada in violation of the Immigration Act or becoming incapacitated through tuberculosis or other disability. Entering in violation of the Immigration Act would include entry by stealth, entry without examination, entry by misrepresentation.
The department has studied all the criminal cases and all the mental cases occurring in British subjects deported over a ten-year period from April 1, 1930 to March 31, 1939. There were 845 criminal cases actually deported in ten years from 1930 to 1939, as follows:
	Persons deported	Per cent
First year .	... 133	15-5Second year	... 178	36-8Third year .	... 217	62-5Fourth year	.. 169	82-5Fifth year .	... 148	100Total 	... 845	There were	also 272 mental cases deported	the ten years 1930 to 1939, as follows:	Persons deported	Per centFirst year	... 42	15-4Second year	... 40	30-1Third year	... 50	48-5Fourth year	... 71	74-6Fifth year	... 69	100Total ...	... 272	
I asked the officers of the department to give me further particulars, and they state: It has not been possible to make a thorough study of the situation but we have up to the moment examined forty-seven cases of British subjects deported following convictions for criminal offences after arrival in Canada, with the following results:
Canadian Citizenship

If domicile had been acquired within one year only 17 per cent of this group would have been deported; if domicile had been acquired within three years 66 per cent would have been deported. We examined twenty-four cases of British subjects deported on account of mental troubles. Had domicile been acquired in one year only 17 per cent of the group would have been deported; if domicile had been acquired in three years 50 per cent of the group would have been deported.
I have also been given a statement of deportations from Canada from April 1, 1930, to March 31, 1945. The table shows the causes for the deportations and classifies the deportations by British subjects, United States citizens and other aliens. It is rather a long table and with the permission of the committee I should like to put it on Hansard. It is as follows:
Statement of Deportations from Canada, from April 1, 1930 to March 31, 1945
Cause for Deportation British Subjects-
Crim-
Fiscal year	inal	Mental	Other1930-31 	
432	189	2,2741931-32 	
436	97	3,2731932-33 	
333	96	3,3501933-34 	
176	66	2,1381934-35 	
68	26	2481935-36 	
45	25	801936-37 	
22	9	1481937-38 	
30	16	761938-39 	
21	11	991939-40 	
18	6	1011940-41 	
9	1	981941-42 	
13	5	1151942-43 	
49	4	291943-44 	
49	4	201944-45 	
39	5	18Totals 	1,740	560	12,067
U.S. Citizens-*
'	Crim-
Fiscal year	inal	Mental	Other1930-31 	
151	30	901931-32 	
108	26	1151932-33 	
142	22	1461933-34 	
94	24	1831934-35 	
58	14	1191935-36 	
56	12	751936-37 	
44	10	1081937-38 	
33	13	891938-39 	
54	17	711939-40 	
59	21	651940-41 	
47	9	651941-42 	
39	9	581942-43 	13	401943-44 	
56	5	351944-45 	
42	8	32Totals 	1,031	233	1,291Other Aliens- Fiscal year	Crim- inal	Mental	Other1930-31 	.... 285	217	4341931-32 	
462	207	1,7561932-33 	.... 361	145	1,9101933-34 	
223	94	1,0371934-35 	
141	64	3091935-36 	
106	26	1511936-37 	
51	19	1031937-38 	.... 38	10	871938-39 	.... 39	4	108i939-40 	.... 33	1	901940-41 	.... 27	1	1681941-42 	.... 17	1991942-43 	
3	2	531943-44 	
6	6	481944-45 	. .. . 18	7	12Totals 	.... 1,291	803	6,465
Totals by Cause

Crim-
Fiscal Year	inal	Mental	Other1930-31 	
868	436	2,7981931-32 	1,006	330	5,1441932-33 	
836	263	5,4061933-34 	
493	184	3,3581934-35 	
267	194	6761935-36 	
207	63	3061936-37 	
117	38	3591937-38 	
101	39	2521938-39 	
114	32	2781939-40 	
110	28	2561940-41 	
83	11	3311941-42 	
69	14	3721942-43 	
100	19	1221943-44 	
Ill	15	1031944-45 	
99	20	62Totals 	4,581	1,596	19,823


Mr. LOCKHART:: Has the minister the total admissions?


James Allison Glen: No; these figures are just ,of the deportations over fifteen years from April 1, 1930, to March 31, 1945. I will give the totals:	Deportations for criminal offences
numbered, in the case of British subjects, 1,740; for mental causes, 560, and for other causes 12,067.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Would the minister put on the record the admissions as well as the deportations?


James Allison Glen: I have not the admissions here. The argument I am making is this, that if citizenship were granted after one year's residence in Canada, the experience which the immigration branch has had with deportations is borne out by the table, which shows the actual results over a fifteen-year period.


Gordon Graydon: ,May I suggest that if the minister wants to makq his statement complete he should accept the suggestion of the hon. member and also gi ve the admissions.

Canadian Citizenship


James Allison Glen: I am not dealing with the admissions to Canada but with the problem before us, namely, the question of deportation, because the hon. member for Eglinton has based his argument on British subjects, and I am pointing out what has been the experience with regard to immigrants coming in over a period of fifteen years. The whole basis of the argument I am submitting here is that if the amendment is carried we may be faced with the very same condition of affairs with regard to immigrants as has been threatened in the last fifteen years. More than that; in these days, after a war of six years, when the health of the people is necessarily lower than it was before, special care will have to be taken with regard to these people. I am informed by competent, medical men that though an immigrant may to all appearances be well, and may pass the medical test, in one, two or three years diseases may appear which were latent in his body but would only come to light after a lapse of time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He should have the X-ray examination overseas.


James Allison Glen: four years during the six years immediately preceding the date of the application. Surdly there is merit in exceptions being made in cases like that. But what I say is that the effect of the hon. gentleman's amendment will be that a British immigrant can obtain, after one year, full rights of citizenship and the immigration department will be deprived of the right to inquire, after the year is over, into the capacity or character of the immigrant, and you will abolish absolutely all the provisions of the Immigration Act with regard to this class of immigrants.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will not change one
word of the Immigration Act.


James Allison Glen: I do not see how you are
going to divorce it, because if this amendment passes inevitably the Immigration Act must be amended. The two acts deal with the same matter, one expressely providing that one year will give the right of citizenship, and the Immigration Act providing, as I have already stated, that five years' residence in Canada is required. There must certainly be no overlapping in that respect, and if this amendment is carried, as it will be the latest expression of this house on the subject, you will immediately cancel all provisions with regard to the entry of applicants who are not, as we think, competent to enter the country under the provisions of this act.
I view this matter with a great deal of seriousness because to-day, with the tremendous number of applications from Europe and eleswhere by those who desire to come to Canada, I do not want to see the restrictions on immigrants relaxed to the extent that we may be bound to take those whom otherwise we would reject. It is an extremely serious matter. It is a matter on which, I know, every member of the house feels as deeply as I do. None of us would go to our constituencies and plead for anything other than that we should have only men and women of sound bodies and sound minds coming into this country. It is for this reason, realizing the dangers, that I ^ave spoken with some degree of heat, although not personal heat. I feel that the committee should not pass this amendment. I feel that provincial governments should have some opportunity of giving expression to their views of the class of immigrants that should be allowed in, the qualifications of those immigrants, in order that those who are, after all, charged with the responsibility and expense of maintaining them shall have some say as to the conditions governing their admission.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I am not going
to speak at length.


An hon. MEMBER:: Good.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: "Good"? That
is fine. I do not speak at length; it is not my practice to take up much of the time of the house. But I think the figures given by the minister in connection with deportations of people who have come to this country -are startling, although he has not given us the figures of the total number of admissions. Of course we want in this country people of sound bodies and sound minds; but, assuming the figures to be as he has stated, I do not see that the amendment of the hon. member to my left is in any way related - to this situation, because persons from any part of the British empire, if they are allowed by the department to come into this country, should be of sound mind and sound body.
I suggested before that this bill should go to a committee to be properly studied, and I am still of that opinion. If one may judge by the figures which the Minister of Mines and resources has given to the committee, it is obvious that something is wrong. This country must have been put to a cost involving thousands of dollars simply -because the inspection of people coming into Canada has not been properly carried out. I repeat, there is something wrong, and it has nothing whatever to do with the question of somebody coming from some part of the British empire and not being given a privilege which we should extend on a reciprocal basis to all people from the British commonwealth' of nations. The figures which the minister has put on Hansard are so startling that something ought to be done about the matter. Wo do not want to have unsound people coming to the country. I see the Minister of National Revenue over there and perhaps he can tell me what should be done in regard to the examination of these people. With medical science what it is to-day, we ought to be able to examine them and ascertain whether they are likely to make good citizens before they come in. I suggest that an investigation should be started right away.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think the minister gave an answer to the members who originally asked him for the figures with regard to immigrants coming from the British isles.


James Allison Glen: For this period of years?
Mr. GRA\ DON: Yes. I have been checking up on one of the returns tabled this session,. and I find that from June 1, 1945, to January 31 of this year, of 14,367 immi-
[Mr. Glen.)

Canadian Citizenship
grants admitted to Canada 8,552 were British. I take it that the figures the minister has put on Hansard ought to be contrasted with the numbers who were actually admitted in those particular years. I do not wish to interfere with the minister's argument by asking him to put those figures on Hansard, but it would give the committee a better opportunity of assessing the exact position if the total number of immigrants from the British isles were indicated at the same time.


James Allison Glen: I will see the officials about it, but I think the hon. member missed the point of my argument. I was not at the moment concerned about the question of admission into Canada. What I was dealing with was the fact that we had to deport British subjects who did not conform to the requirements of the Immigration Acts. These things are necessary no matter whether the people concerned are English, Scottish, Welsh or anybody else. It is necessary to have the power to deport them in that period of time and that is the reason I gave the figures to support the argument.


Gordon Graydon: The minister is not doing it consciously, but unconsciously he is actually giving a black eye to the British isles by simply putting on Hansard-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Gordon Graydon: Wait a minute. Do not be so touchy over there.


An hon. MEMBER:: Another lecture?


Gordon Graydon: I was simply trying to state a case fairly and if it touches a tender spot I suggest that it might be well for my hon. friends not to be so touchy about it. It is giving a black eye to the British isles to put on Hansard the figures with regard to a large number of people who are supposed to have been deported from Canada without at the same time indicating the numbers that came in. That is the only reason I raised the point. I know that when the minister reflects upon it he will realize that the suggestion is a perfectly proper one, and those hon. members who have heard what I have said in this regard will not think it is so bad after all.


Major James William Coldwell: In the table that has been put on Hansard, is there a break-down of the causes for deportation? While my guess yesterday was slightly high in the figure given, a large number of people were deported because they were public charges.


Thomas Reid: Many asked to be deported.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to know whether, in the table that has been put on Hansard, we are given the number of persons deported year by year because they were public charges. As I said yesterday, my hon. friends are very anxious to protect British citizens coming to the country, but when they were in power they deported a large number simply because they were poor. I should like to know what the figure is.


James Allison Glen: The table I have put on Hansard shows deportations in connection with the British isles and the United States from the point of view of criminal offences and mental reasons, as well as other causes. These other causes are not broken down.


Mr. KIDD:: I know the minister wishes to be fair. He will correct me if I am wrong, but speaking from memory I believe that in the ten-year period from 1930 to 1940 there entered Canada about 150,000 immigrants annually. That would represent a million and a half, and of those 150,000 annually there were about 50,000 from the British isles. Multiply that ten by * fifty and you have 500.000 British immigrants coming to Canada in that peirod. I suggest that, to be fair, the Minister of Mines and Resources should have tabulated his figures on a percentage basis. But that was not done. He should take the figures he submitted a few minutes ago and couple with them the half million immigrants who came from Great Britain. If he does so he will find the percentage is very small.


Humphrey Mitchell: This is the trouble you get into when you try to grade Canadians like eggs in a grocer's store. I came from the old country, as did the Minister of Mines and Resources, and I jiave had some experience as an alderman in Hamilton during the bad days from 1930 to 1935. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar raised a question about people who were deported because they were destitute, and I should like to get the figures of the number of people who voluntarily asked for deportation on the ground of destitution. I agree with the Minister of Mines and Resources. Those of us who have had anything to do with public institutions know it is absolutely necessary, no matter where people come from, that the state should have some say as to the return of individuals who, for reasons possibly beyond their control, become public charges-through insanity, disease or for any other reason. In my opinion, the amendment raises the question of differentiation between Canadian citizens. I believe that everybody should be treated alike, irrespective of where they came from.
Canadian Citizenship


Alistair McLeod Stewart: What about the Japanese?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can answer that too. If my hon. friend had been sitting where I sat in 1942, what would he have done?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I
would have done a better job than you.


Humphrey Mitchell: If he had been sitting where I was sitting in 1942, when-freedom as we understand it was almost disappearing from the face of the earth, he probably would have taken the same position that we had to take, and the Americans had to take, at that time.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The Americans did not.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Americans did it, of course. But I was speaking of an entirely different matter. I was speaking of the immigrants who h-ve come to this country, and I think they shi. dd all be treated the same, irrespective of whi 'e they come from. If five years is the trial p nod before citizenship is granted, I think it is :ke the law; you cannot have two principles, o. e for the rich and a different one for the poi'', for if you do you are headed for' revolutioi So that I hope the amendment will be deft ',ted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Earlier in this debate the question of the Japanese was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South. At that time I placed myself on record as favouring the implementing of the government's policy with respect to deportation of the Japanese. Idid, however, declare that I felt this matter should be decided before the present bill becomes law, because if this bill becomes law the Japanese have the right to become Canadian citizens. I made that clear at the time.
If, however, the government's policy is changed, or for any other reason they do not implement that policy, and the Japanese remain in Canada, then, although I personally regard that as a mistake, as I have said we live in a democracy and presumably would have to abide by the decision of the majority. We, however, from British Columbia have asked for a fair chance first to state our case against the Japanese. If it should be decided, nevertheless, that they remain in Canada, then that decision can only be based on the fact that they are fit to become Canadian citizens, because they can be allowed to remain in Canada only if they are fit to be Canadian citizens. If, then, they stay in the country, my position would be that they must be given full rights to citizenship, much as I may disagree with the original decision to allow them to remain in the country.


Thomas Reid: Even though they hold Japanese citizenship?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is an argument against allowing them to remain. But if the decision is to allow them to remain, then I am afraid my position is that we must give them full citizenship. That is why I supported the amendment previously suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre as to elimination of racial distinction.
However, to return to the point made by the Minister of Mines and Resources about the feeling now being indicated in the country against this method of deportation of citizens by orders in council, let me point out that he said it would be an evil principle to admit that a man who had acquired Canadian citizenship could be deported in one year, or at any time after having acquired citizenship. I am wondering if the Minister of Mines and Resources has consulted with the Secretary of State in the matter, because if he will look at section 21 in the present bill he will find it is there provided that the governor in council may order that any person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen

shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if upon a report he is satisfied that certain conditions exist.
It is provided in the bill that the governor in council shall have power to revoke a grant of Canadian citizenship, and therefore the righteous horror of the Minister of Mines and Resources at the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Eglinton loses a great deal of its effect. If he supports the bill, that means that he wants it carried into effect as it now stands; if he supports the bill, he is supporting that very principle against which he protested, namely that the governor in council shall have the right to revoke a grant of Canadian citizenship.
Therefore I think that the Minister of Mines and Resources must either modify his opposition to the amendment offered by the hon. member for Eglinton or, at the proper time, suggest to the Secretary of State that he amend the bill by deleting section 21. I shall be most interested to see what course he follows when we come to section 21
The minister based his further argument against the present amendment on his objection to the possibility of admitting physically unfit and mentally unfit people into the country to become citizens and to become a liability upon Canada. I would point out to the minister and to other hon. members that full power will be left either to the Minister of Mines and Resources, to the Secretary of State or to whoever is administering affairs having to do with immigration, to send those people out of the country exactly as he has power now to do. It will be recalled that my first point was that nothing in the amendment involves any change to the Immigration Act, because the two acts are directed toward entirely different objects. The Immigration Act will stand and should stand as it is to-day. However, even if the minister does not accept that point, there is still ample power under section 21 of the bill to deport any person found to be suffering from certain complaints indicated, or to be guilty of certain crimes which would now render him liable to deportation under the Immigration Act.
Let me read some of the relevant parts:
21 (1) The governor in council may order that any person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if, upon a report from the minister, he is satisfied-	\
Of a number of things. And one of those things is "that such person has obtained a certificate of naturalization or of Canadian citizenship by false representation or fraud or by concealment of material circumstances".
I submit if it were found two years after the

Canadian Citizenship
arrival of a person in Canada that he or she was suffering from some serious contagious disease, it could 'be easily established that he or she had obtained the certificate by concealment of material circumstances, if the disease existed before the arrival of the immigrant. If it did not exist at the time of arrival I should not think we would be entitled to deport, because the disease would have been contracted after the arrival in Canada. But if it is a condition which existed before arrival, then I would say that citizenship had been acquired by concealment of material circumstances. There is power in the present bill for deportation under such circumstances.
If a person is guilty of certain crimes, such as are now contemplated by the Immigration Act, then under paragraph (c) of section 21 (1) there is, again, power in the Secretary of State to revoke citizenship and provide for deportation.
There are a number of other circumstances contemplated in that section which give the right to deport undesirable immigrants. I think it is a good section. I do not share the objection of the Minister of Mines and Resources to entrusting that power to the Secretary of State. As I say, a similar power is already in existence under the Immigration Act and there is no reason to change that. We shall have a double guarantee by section 21 of the present bill. Finally, if it should happen that the clauses I have recited do not cover the specific points the minister has in mind, then it would be a simple matter to amend section 21 at the appropriate time to give specific coverage.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we support this amendment because we do not wish to abrogate any of the attributes of Canadian citizenship which we now enjoy, and among those attributes is our status as British subjects. We do not wish to sever any ties with the empire, and they are very slender ties as ' ties of loyalty and affection must always be; you cannot put your finger on them and they are broken quite easily, particularly when there is a constant picking away, a pin-prick here and a pin-prick there. If that sort of thing continues, we are likely to wake up one day and find that these ties have vanished. Because we do not want that possibility to occur, we oppose with all our vigour this section of the bill as it now stands. Moreover, the fears expressed by the Minister of Mines and Resources with regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Eglinton can be dissolved if he will read carefully the Immigration Act, or if the Secretary of State will a'vail himself of the powers contained in section 21 of the present bill. For these reason I fail to see that the objections of the Minister of Mines and Resources have a great deal of validity, and I submit to the committee that it should judge on their face value the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Eglinton when he put forward this amendment.


Mr. HANSELL:: I would not want this amendment to pass without saying a word or two on the matter. Like some of those who have spoken this evening, I also was born on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. However, I have spent most of my life in Canada.
I appreciate the hon. member for Peel asking the minister if he would not on some future occasion give us a better and more complete picture. When the Minister of Mines and Resources was giving the details of the deportations my blood boiled. He may have been just debating a point, but he certainly was leaving an impression with me that we were taking a terrible chance in letting these people from the United Kingdom into Canada.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: That is true.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend over there says, "That is true." I should like that to get on Hansard with his name on it.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Yes, of course; I do not care.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You should be ashamed of yourself for making that statement.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I never will, I hope.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Those are the men who fought at Dieppe and Dunkirk. They did not run away. They were not conscripted either. .


Ernest George Hansell: If the minister has failed to give the committee a complete picture, then as a responsible minister he opens himself to attack by the British people themselves. I ask him to remedy the matter quickly by giving us a complete picture; otherwise I will guarantee the British press will have something to say about this.
It may be perfectly true that many of the people who came to this country were deported because of mental failure, but what was their condition when they came here? What happened during the years? There must have been a reason for their condition. I do not believe there is any greater reason for mental deficiency than stark poverty. If the minister really wants to give a true picture, let him give the committee statistics showing how many Canadian people went insane during the nineteen-thirties and how many of our young men could not be placed in category
Canadian Citizenship

A when they were called to arms. What was wrong with this country? That should go into the picture.
In the nineteen-thirties, when this country was abundantly wealthy, how many people were put off their farms and out of their homes and because of a stupid policy had to go into the insane asylum? Many of those people committed suicide. That also is part of the picture. Considering the real wealth that we had and the fact that people were living in poverty, I am inclined to think it was the government that was crazy.


An hon. MEMBER:: The government of the time.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: You mean in Alberta.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, the government of the time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Members opposite were here for five years of that time.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not concerned with that; I am concerned with the fact that somebody was running the affairs of this country at the time and did not have sense enough to be able to distribute our surplus real wealth to the poor people who were faced with the insane asylum because of then-stark poverty. As I say, if anybody needed to be deported for insanity it was the people who were running this country at the time.


Mr. MERRITT:: I wish to say a few words before this amendment is put to the committee. A short time ago you, Mr. Chairman, attempted to put the question and I noticed that the Secretary of State did not attempt to rise to answer the hon. member for Eglinton. I think that was a significant ' omission on the part of the Secretary of State:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Give me a chance and I will.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The Chairman attempted to put the question and the Secretary of State did not rise to stop him. I think I am entitled to take it that the Secretary of State did not intend to make a further statement before this amendment was put if he could avoid doing so. I am interested also -in what the Minister of Mines. and Resources has said. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of Mines and Resources has made any attempt whatever to meet the real point raised by the hon. member for Eglinton in his amendment. The whole process has been one of dragging red herrings across the path and conjuring up strawmen, as my hon. friend has said, in order to support a section of the bill which is unsupportable in this country. When the Minister of Mines and Resources
[Mr. Hans M.i
added to that process by attempting to drag his red herring across the trail, I was amazed indeed. I shall deal with that as I go on.
I do not believe that section 10 is in the bill in its present form on the grounds of health at all, and I propose to prove that and I have a particular reason for doing so. I have here the Montreal Gazette of April 30, of which the heading is "Martin defends Citizenship Bill," and the sub-headings are "Replies to Critics-Rights and Privileges of British Subjects Inviolate." If that is the kind of thing that is getting into the press as a result of the minister's jumping up and down all day yesterday and to-day to protest about the rights and privileges of British subjects being held inviolate under this bill, I wish to state that I for one entirely disagree with the minister, and I want the press of this country to know there are members of this house who do not believe that the rights and privileges of British subjects are being held inviolate under this bill.
Mr, MARTIN:	Name one right that is
being violated by this bill.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister asks what
right of citizenship is being taken away from a British subject by this bill. I would answer him the whole thing-the whole thing-everything that citizenship means. That is what is being taken away from the British subject who enters Canada under this bill. At the present moment a British subject who has been in Canada for one year has exactly the same rights as I, a British subject who was born in Canada. He has the same right to call himself a Canadian citizen that I have, and I would say to the minister that very many of them earned that right by their service to Canada. By that service they have the same right that I have by birth. The minister cannot deny that at the moment if a British subject from outside Canada comes to this country and is willing to serve and fight for Canada he has the same right that I have. The minister cannot deny that the moment this bill is passed that British subject no longer has the same right that I have because he has not the right to call himself a Canadian citizen. That is the right he will lose, the whole right-and that is the right which I shall retain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say that he does not lose one right under this bill and the hon. member knows it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I shall go on as the
minister is so interested in this point. I was coming down on the train last year and another member told me a pig story. He told me that

Canadian Citizenship
a pig in his pen had more freedom than a lot of Canadian people. He said that the pig had freedom from want because it was never denied food. It had freedom from care because all it had to do was to stay in his sty and be fed. It had freedom from rain because it was protected from the weather. When the hon. member had finished his story, I said to him, as I say to the minister, that the only thing the pig did not have, in spite of all these freedoms, was Freedom itself. That is the answer I make to the minister. It is a parallel case. So that the minister's pretence is torn aside.
I go on now to the series of other pretences which have been put up as the ostensible reasons for the wording of this section. First of all, we on this side claim that this will infringe the right of a British subject to vote. The minister said that nothing like that was intended. But he has practically admitted it. He challenged some member on this side to say that he would like to see the franchise act amended to restrict it to Canadian citizens. Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see any good reason, once we pass a Canadian citizenship act, why anybody but Canadian citizens should be granted the franchise; and I am prepared to say that that is one of the inevitable consequences of this bill, whether or not the Secretary of State intends at this particular moment to bring in any'such amendment. Do not let us fool ourselves about this thing; it is too obvious. The Secretary of State may not do it, but somebody will do it and perhaps before very long.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Twenty-seven years.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister must have a copy of my notes and know what I was going to say.
The second pretence that is being advanced is the pretence that the provisions of the Immigration Act defining "Canadian domicile" have anything to do with this bill. The Immigration Act and the citizenship bill are two entirely different things. I shall not add to what the hon. member for Eglinton has said on that point except to comment that it is significant that the minister did not attempt to answer him.
The next strawman that was put up by the minister was his challenge to the hon. member for Eglinton to say that no citizen who has been granted Canadian citizenship should be deported. The minister forgot at the time he made that challenge-which the hon. member for Eglinton met by the frank statement that he would be in favour of granting the right to deport-that he had in his own bill that
very provision in section 21, as has been pointed out several times. That was the next strawman to be knocked down.
I come to another thing. There has been talk as if section 10 by itself granted Canadian citizenship. Section 10 does nothing of the sort. It only provides the means by which application shall be made and the conditions under which application shall be made for the granting of citizenship. There is no reason in the world why, if my hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Resources-who is so full of these bogeys that he will not admit anybody into this country anyhow-is 'so frightened on health grounds, he could not have the officials of the immigration branch appear in court at the time application for citizenship was made, and oppose the application if they were not satisfied with the physical or mental health of the candidate for citizenship. Even if the minister's officials did not turn up to do that, we already have in section 21 ample procedure for the revocation of a certificate. If necessary, a further subsection could be added providing that the certificate could be revoked for any of the reasons so laboriously read out by the Minister of Mines and Resources. Any government wishing to do more than pay mere lip-service to the status of British subjects, could have found procedural ways to get around procedural difficulties and procedural strawmen, which they have set up in order to support a section which strikes deeply at a status which a very large number of Canadians, although they do not talk about it a great deal, value very deeply indeed.
I have noticed that the Secretary of Btate several times, when the status of a British subject has been eulogized, has called lbudly and vigorously, "hear, hear."


Paul Joseph James Martin: Because I believe in it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes, the Secretary of State believes in it. I call upon the Secretary of State for more than lip-service to a status in which he believes.
I go on one step further. We showed good reason for differentiating between the status and the treatment of someone coming into Canada who was a British subject, and someone coming into Canada who was an alien. I am not going to restate the reason; it has been stated over and over again; and I have heard nobody on the other side claim that a British subject coming into Canada has not a start in training in our democratic methods over an alien coming into Canada. That is our stand, and it is not based on anything but
Canadian Citizenship

a good sound reason and a good solid belief in a status which we know to be valuable, and valuable to Canada.
So I say, Mr. Chairman, that speakers on this side of the house have laid bare all the pretences and strawmen set up by the Secretary of State. I want to give now what I believe to be the real reason why the minister insists that this provision be kept in the bill and the amendment not accepted. That real reason has been stated to-night by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet. He made the following statements on two.. occasions. He said, "Why should not British subjects be treated as aliens?"


John Ritchie MacNicol: Shame.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: And again, when somebody raised the question of the knowledge that British subjects held of democratic rights, he said, "What about Americans?" If the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet is giving voice to beliefs held by any hon. members other than himself-and I have reason to believe, after all I have heard in this chamber, that that may be so-I wish to say that I believe the minister has listened to these arguments, and that is why the amendment is not being accepted. I say to him that he has heard the roar of the train with the hot-box as he lay dozing away in the country, and because of that roar he has failed to notice the steady murmurings of the countryside.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is complicated.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Hon. members laugh; they do not understand what I mean. I will make it too clear for them. I will simply say that he has listened to a vocal minority and he has missed the clear feeling of the majority of people in this country. I say this too, that he has overbid the middle position in this country. We on this side of the house who believe in the status of a British subject follow the principles it upholds. We believe in evolution. We believe in freedom. I said the other day in the house that the very reason I am proud of being a British subject and that I want to remain so, is that I am perfectly free if I have that status. So that we shall go all the way in compromise with other Canadians to meet their views so long as that process is evolution; but when it becomes retrogression and when it 'cuts in on rights that we hold to our hearts as dearly as they hold their feelings, then we must stop; we cannot agree with views of that kind, and Canadian unity is not to be built upon that kind of foundation.

I am all for building up complete Cana-dianism. I am all for enlarging the status of the Canadian citizen. But that must be done and that can be done without derogating from another right which I also hold dearly. There is no reason why these rights should clash. There is no reason for this difference of views; there is nothing in it at all. A Canadian who is a British subject , cannot rest content if his Canadianism is incomplete. There need be no clash, unless you want to torture yourselves over words.
I have said some things earlier in this debate upon the value of the status we are toying with so lightly and paying lip-service to, but that we are not upholding. I just wish very shortly to repeat them in principle.
The value of the status of a British subject and of the British commonwealth of nations is that, in time of trouble, although we differ often in good times, we can sink our differences and be as one to face that trouble. Another great value to us all is that it enables us to enter into negotiations with another empire country in a spirit of mutual trust, which you could not do with a foreign country. You cannot be sure of a foreign country; you can be sure that though your brother-country may disagree with you, it will never take advantage of you or knife you in the back. Finally, the status of a British subject is the status of freedom itself.
Let us talk for one second about change in status. We are British subjects; we are free; we can change our status any time we want to. So that I say yes, if your change is based on a sound principle of evolution I am with you to change it; but if your change is based on a misconception of the status, on an inferiority complex or something of that nature, if your Canadianism is so lukewarm that you doubt it when it is allied to citizenship in the British empire, if that is the motivating cause of the desire to change, then I say no;
I am not with you. In this case I say that that is the motivating cause.
Canada has in this post-war world a new role and a big role. We talk a great deal, and rightly, of our new and greater place in the world. Canada, therefore, has the responsibility which goes with that power. It has a responsibility now in the task of evolving this status of a British subject and of the British commonwealth of nations. What Canada does in connection with the status she is doing not only for Canada; she is setting an example, as the Secretary of State has already said, to the British peoples in all parts of the world. Although this bill will not affect me at all,

Canadian Citizenship
because it will not deprive me in any respect of my rights as a British subject, nevertheless I cannot see the rights of other British subjects who may come to Canada derogated from in any way that I should not like were it applied to myself. That is why I have spoken in this [DOT]way, The minister has also said that the position I take is an extreme one. Let me disabuse his mind. The position I take is in no way extreme; it is the position that is taken by the great majority of the people of Canada.
We talk also of this great question of national unity in the country and no one wants it more than I do. Indeed, there is no one in Canada who does not want it and want it quickly. But I must say I am fed up with gibes directed at my status as a Canadian because I am one of those who hold the British connection, dear. Let me say to hon. members opposite, who so freely make gibes at me and my kind, that our Canadianism is not complete; that we walk in a shadow; that we are colonials, and things of that nature-that I bitterly resent these remarks. I do not reply with counter gibes, but I do say to them that Canadian unity is not to be built on any foundation such as that. I will go a long way to meet the views of any hon. gentleman in this house, but I do not see why I should have to put up with things that I consider insulting to myself. If we who value the British connection think that Canada's destiny is to take a part in the world commensurate with our greatness as a nation, and therefore we look outwards as well as inwards-outwards to the world as well as inwards on ourselves-that does not make us any less good Canadians than those who look inwards only.
May I conclude by saying that I shall await, from the Secretary of State with interest some reasonable ground upon which he can support his opposition to this amendment. But it will have to be a great deal better, if it is to convince me, than anything I have heard so far in this debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have listened attentively to the hon. gentleman. I did not intend to take the line which I am about to follow, but I feel that in the few moments remaining before eleven o'clock I should say this. No one appreciates more than I do the character and gallantry of the hon. gentleman. No one admires him more in this house. In fact, we all admire the hon. gentleman for his gallantry. But he'has no monopoly on patriotism in so far as it concerns Canada-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Nor does he claim it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -or in so far as it concerns the feeling which all of us share of loyalty to a common crown, which is the basis of that common status which we call British subjects. Under this measure British subjects do not lose one right which they have now.


Mr. COCKERAM:: They certainly do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says they certainly do. Let me repeat that under this bill British subjects, at the end of one year, having resided in a constituency for two months continuously, will have the right to vote. Having resided here for one year, after the passage of this bill, British subjects will be able to run for parliament. They will be eligible for civil service appointments; they will be eligible to vote. I repeat, what right under this bill is taken away from British subjects?
I should have thought that my hon. friends would have commended the government-and perhaps, too, the Secretary of State-for doing what is done in no act in any dominion in the commonwealth, namely, saying, without fear and unequivocally, in section 26-the only place where it is done in the British commonwealth-that a Canadian citizen is a British subject.
Why try to create the impression that only one group in this house has loyalty to the crown? We all have. Loyalty is not confined only to one group; it is shared by all of us. As my hon. friend spoke I reflected that I happen to be three-quarters of French descent. My wife's father's people, all came from the British isles. As a young lad I studied in the province of Quebec. My mother, a French-Canadian woman, said, "I want you to understand that Canada is a large country with many groups." As the hon. gentleman sitting right in front of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard knows, I took my univers- -ity course at the university of Toronto and I studied at an English university with the view of trying to understand both sides. I cannot, therefore, sit in my place and have anyone suggest to me that I have not a full appreciation of the value of the words "British subject".
It is for that reason that, addressing myself to other hon. gentlemen in this house who take an opposite view-what I call an extreme view-I have resisted the suggestion that this bill suffers in its purposes because of the implications of section 26.
I believe that Canada is a free nation within the commonwealth, a commonwealth which, as I said last night, has been a source of good in the world and has been maintained because
Questions

those who have had to do with the commonwealth have recognized that by giving personality, maturity and autonomy to its constituents it could thereby best carry on as a great force for good in the world.
This bill, instead of depriving British subjects of their rights, gives them a right which they have not to-night-documentary proof wherever they go in the world as to their national status. That is the situation.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 1, 1946.