1946-04-02

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa. Office of the Secretary to the Governor General
April 2, 1946.
The Honourable the Speaker of the
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform the house that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Administrator, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Wednesday, April 3, at 5.50 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
X have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



UNITED NATIONS


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement with respect to Canadian representation on the united nations atomic energy commission.
It will be recalled that on January 25 of the present year the general assembly of the united nations, meeting in London, provided for the establishment of a commission to deal
Postal Service

with the urgent and important problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy and other related matters.
It was also provided in the resolution adopted by the assembly that the commission should be composed of one representative from each of those states represented on the security council, and Canada when this country was not a member of the security council. Each national representative on the commission was to have such assistance as might be desired.
The secretary general of the united nations has now asked the government of Canada to appoint a representative to this important commission and an order in council has accordingly been passed appointing General the Honourable Andrew G. L. McNaughton, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., as Canadian representative.
General McNaughton will be assisted by an advisory panel consisting of appropriate officials of the Departments of Reconstruction and Supply, External Affairs, and National Defence, and including the president of the national research council. The membership of the panel will be flexible according to the nature of the questions coming before it for consideration, and provision has been made for adding persons with special knowledge to this group of advisers as and when it may be deemed desirable.



POSTAL SERVICE


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with two deliveries service by letter carriers in residential districts throughout the dominion, may I say that instructions are being issued at once for the employment of additional men from Monday next, and to give them one week's training. The reestablishment of two deliveries service in residential districts will therefore become effective on April 15, two weeks from to-day.
I am glad to say that arrangements have been completed under which, effective immediately, the parcel post service from Canada to certain countries has now been extended to include commercial parcels.
Commercial parcels for such countries weighing up to twenty pounds where that weight limit applies, and prepaid accordingly, will be accepted for onward transmission.
Gift parcels weighing over eleven pounds may also be forwarded under the same conditions to countries other than the United Kingdom. The eleven pound weight limit still

applies for gift parcels to the United Kingdom in accordance with the regulations of the British postal authorities which have not yet been modified.
Full instructions have already been issued to the postal service in order that this extension may be made available to Canadian business firms without delay. I wish to give a list of the countries where commercial parcels may be made:
Extension of gift parcel post service to include commercial shipments
Belgium, British North Borneo (7 lb. limit of weight); Brunei (7 lb. limit of weight); China (except Manchuria and provinces of Shansi, S'uiyan and Cbabar (11 lb. limit of weight); Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Guam (15 lb. limit of weight) ; Hong Kong,, Luxembourg, Malay States (Federated and un-federabed); Netherlands, Norway, Philippines (11 lb. limit of weight) ; Poland, Sarawak (7 lb. limit of weight); Straits Settlements. Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia (11 lb. limit of weight).



PRICE CONTROL


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement regarding recent developments in price ceiling policy.
During the past few days, as hon. members no doubt will have noticed, the wartime prices and trade board has authorized a number of important price adjustments. Ceiling prices for iron and steel and for various consumer articles made from iron and steel have been increased. Producers of lumber will be permitted to charge higher prices, although wholesalers' and retailers' ceilings. remain unchanged. Butter and pork prices have been raised. Price increases have been permitted for various pulp and paper products other than newsprint. In the course of the next three or four months small increases will take place in the retail prices of clothing and furnishings consequent upon the government's decision to eliminate subsidies on imports of raw cotton and wool.
Taken in conjunction with the decision made at the beginning of February to suspend price ceilings on a list of some 300 items and with the relaxation of rigid price controls on many imported goods, these recent steps may be regarded by some as implying that price control is breaking down, or at least that the basic policy of the government has been changed.
I am therefore taking this opportunity of making it plain that such is not the case. These adjustments are part and parcel of a -arefully planned programme which has been developing gradually since V-E day, and which, in its broad outlines, has been

Price Control
explained to the house and to the public on several occasions during the past twelve months. These measures do not mean that the government's anti-inflation policy as administered by the prices board is beginning to falter. They do not mean that we contemplate an early lifting of our price control system, nor must they be taken to imply that any serious increase in the cost of living is impending. On the contrary, they indicate that the government is prepared to maintain control over the movement of prices during this difficult and highly dangerous transition period.
I need hardly say that the danger of inflation is still very great. Many commodities are still in short supply, e.g., food, textiles and building materials-all highly essential. Purchasing power and consumer demands exceed their war-time levels. In this situation it would be unthinkable to allow prices to find their own level. But that does not mean, of course, that the administration of price control should not change. The system which served Canada so well in war must now be adapted, and is being adapted, to meet the special circumstances of the transition period.
Our system of price control has always permitted price adjustments in cases of genuine necessity. The special significance of the adjustments recently announced arises from the fact that they cover a wider area of Canadian industry than has so far been affected. I believe, however, that this will be recognized as the sensible approach to the problem. It would be folly to pretend that the government could continue to administer the same more or less inflexible system of price ceilings that was appropriate to the uncertain days of 1942 and i943. Here and there the line has to bend if it is not to break.
The declared aim of the government's price policy for the transition period is to give a reasonable degree of stability to living costs while creating conditions favorable to a high level of employment and production. In practice this means that where the wartime prices and trade board is satisfied that production is capable of expanding on the basis of basic period selling prices, then basic period prices will continue as the legal maxima. On the other hand, where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the prices board that present ceiling prices are prejudicially affecting production and employment, adjustments are made. But except for commodities in quite ample supply, or relatively unimportant, price ceilings are. not suspended.
As the house will realize, it is easy to state general principles such as these but more
difficult to put them into practice. The prices board is literally in a continuous fight to prevent- price increases from being extended any further than is absolutely necessary. The increases in prices, to which I referred earlier, provide examples of the policy in practice. In the case of iron and steel, the support of the price structure formerly given by war production has disappeared. Consequently, wartime increases in .costs must now be reflected in selling prices of the basic iron and steel products. The wartime accumulation of cost increases, particularly wage increases, is also the basic factor behind the increase in the producer's price of soft-wood lumber, and in pulp and paper prices.
Another factor behind certain recent price increases stems from the decision which the government reached some time ago to reduce or eliminate subsidy payments. While subsidies played a vital part in checking the forces of inflation during the war, they are not desirable as a permanent feature of the price structure, and should be removed as expeditiously as possible. Certain subsidies were paid to offset temporary wartime cost increases and are more or less self-liquidating. The subsidies formerly paid on imports of petroleum are a good example of what I mean. On the other hand, it looks as if the wartime increase in the cost of imported cotton and wool, for example, is more or less permanent. In view of this, the board has largely withdrawn from the payment of subsidies on wool imports in recent months, and has reduced the amount of subsidy paid on cotton imports. At the same time, the prices board has authorized certain price increases that will be necessary to compensate for the higher price of wool and cotton as the various products move from the mills and converters, through to the garment manufacturers and down to the final consumer. The price increases authorized have been carefully worked out in relation to seasonal production, and in relation to inventories and other such factors, and the board is confident that the increase of consumer prices will be kept to the bare minimum necessary to offset subsidies. In other words, basic period or 1941 price ceilings in this particular industry, as in other industries where adjustments are necessary, will cease to be the rule, but the system of legal maximum price ceilings remains intact.
The recent increases in the prices of butter and pork products require very little explanation. In the case of butter, an additional incentive is needed if even a restricted consumer ration is to be met. In the case of bacon, the United Kingdom, realizing that hog numbers were declining seriously, agreed
International Trade

to raise contract prices immediately, and the domestic price was simply adjusted to the new level.
I am confident that the policy we have been following is capable of meeting the realities of this period of adjustment. It will undoubtedly mean a modest increase in the cost of living. But it will enable us to preserve the economic advantages we have gained from nearly five years of self-discipline on the economic front, and will protect consumers and producers alike from the economic and social dislocation which would surely develop if present inflationary pressures were given free rein.
In conclusion I wish to reiterate that the government has no intention of putting into effect what some political and other groups are advocating, namely, the removal, wholly or substantially, of price control.
We believe that price control and the maintenance of ceilings have the support of the Canadian people and we do not intend at this stage of the fight to flout their opinion or destroy the results of nearly five years of determined effort to prevent inflation.
I would like to appeal to this house and to the Canadian people for continued support of measures which we are satisfied are necessary if economic stability is to be maintained, if the real value of our currency and our bonds is to be protected, and if the bankruptcy and unemployment resulting from a price boom followed by a price collapse are to be avoided.


Mrs. STRUM:: I should like to address
a question to the Minister of Finance on his statement, regarding the price of butter. Did I understand the minister to say that this arises out of a withdrawal of the subsidy to the producers of butter fat?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I did not say that.
The subsidies are not withdrawn.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table order in council P.C. 1218 of March 29, 1916, which authorizes the creation of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I would like to make a brief statement to explain some of the main functions of this corporation.
In view of the many transactions which require immediate attention, it has been necessary to bring the corporation into being by means of order in council. Legislation

will be presented at this session to enable the corporation to operate on a continuing basis for a period.
For some time it has been clear that there are many transactions in international trade which cannot be handled entirely by private enterprise and the work of the corporation is intended to supplement the activities of business organization rather than to interfere with them.
The Canadian Commercial Corporation will, firstly, take over the various functions of making purchases in this country for foreign governments and the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration that have hitherto been performed by the Canadian Export Board. The value of such purchases made to date by the Canadian Export Board exceeds $417,000,000.
Secondly, the Canadian Commercial Corporation will assist private enterprise in obtaining essential supplies from ex-enemy territories. Supplies from such territories cannot be obtained at present through ordinary commercial channels.
Thirdly, this corporation provides the machinery which could be used in the future to purchase commodities such as sugar, tea, oils and fats which are under international allocation or foreign government control and may continue to be so for some time to come.
It is impossible at the moment to enumerate in full detail all the functions that will be discharged by the corporation. The three main purposes that I have outlined are only an indication of the work to be performed. New tasks may devolve upon the corporation, as its work proceeds, in the light of its developing experience and the needs of Canadian business.
The creation of the Canadian Commercial Corporation enables the government to provide facilities to Canadian business that will match those being offered to British and American traders through the operations of the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation and the United States Commercial Corporation.
The executive officer who will be charged with the primary responsibility for directing the activities of the corporation will be its director and general manager, Mr. W. D. Low, who assumes these new duties after having been chairman of the Canadian Export Board, and prior to that, executive assistant to the deputy minister of the Department of Munitions and Supply, where he had supervision over the purchasing branches. He is on loan from the purchasing department in Montreal of the Canadian National Railways.

House of Commons
The president of the new corporation is Mr. M. W. Mackenzie, deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and its directors are: Mr. H. B. McKinnon, president, Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation; Mr. David Sim, deputy minister, Department of National Revenue (customs and excise); Mr. V. W. Scully, deputy minister, Department of Reconstruction and Supply; Mr. D. B. Finn, deputy minister, Department of Fisheries; Mr. L. P. St. Amour, assistant deputy governor, Bank of Canada, and Mr. W. D. Low.
The corporation will be capitalized at



$10,000.000. HOUSE OF COMMONS STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR PARKDALE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word about the resignation of the hon. member for Parkdale, Mr. Bruce, which was announced to the house last night, and the reference made by Your Honour to the fact that you are issuing a writ to-day for a new election.
What I am about to say is said solely with the intention of bringing to the attention of hon. members of the house what I believe to be the spirit if not the letter of the parliamentary law with respect to a member of parliament relinquishing his seat in the House of Commons. Do not let it be assumed for one moment that I take any exception to the hon. member for Parkdale having resigned his seat, or that I am criticizing his action in so doing. Such is not the case. I believe there is a certain responsibility upon myself as the leader of the house to draw the attention of the house to what is quite evidently, according to the authorities, the spirit of the parliamentary law with respect to resignations of members of the House of Commons.
The House of Commons Act does not set forth any reason for a member's resignation. Section 6 says, "Any member of the House of Commons may resign his seat" either by giving notice in his place in the house or by addressing a written declaration of his intention to resign attested by two witnesses. Nevertheless it may I think be truly said that a member is elected to serve during the life of a parliament. Unless there are grave reasons compelling him to return to private life, or he receives some appointment underthe crown he is, I believe, in duty bound to keep the mandate he has received from his constituents. Sir Erskine May says in his thirteenth edition, at page 45:
It is ia settled principle of parliamentary law that a member after he is duly chosen, cannot relinquish his seat.
This restriction can be evaded in the United Kingdom by a member accepting an office under the crown, usually the Chiltern Hundreds, an office which is merely nominal though assuming the form of a place of profit. The evasion takes place only when there are grave or very special reasons for it. It would nor be acceptable if a member wished to resign when he becomes weary of political life or feels that parliamentary work interferes with his personal affairs.
Redlich, Procedure of the House of Commons, volume 2, at page 99, says:
It is well known that English parliamentary law recognizes no power on the part of a member to relinquish his seat.
Bourinot, fourth edition, at page 157, says:
It was formerly a principle of parliamentary law that a member after he is duly chosen cannot relinquish his seat.
There can be no doubt that the hon. member for Parkdale had the right to resign without giving any reason for taking that step, but he has taken a course which may establish a dangerous precedent. The House of Commons Act, in prescribing the way in which a member may resign, cannot have intended to make resignation easy, and applicable on the slightest provocation. The cause of it, it would appear, should be prompted by public rather than personal interest.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is he making room for
Arthur Meighen?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: You will find out in time.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Arising out of the statement of the Prime Minister with respect to the resignation of the hon. member Jor Parkdale, I did not understand the Prime Minister's intention or purpose or what he desired in making a statement of the kind. I gathered that it was in some sense a criticism of the hon. member for tendering his resignation. If it was, I would like to ask him this question: What criticism did he offer the bon. member for Glengarry for resigning when the Prime Minister was without a seat iD this house?
Canadian Army


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was very
careful to say that I was not taking exception to the resignation of the hon. member for Parkdale.
Some hon. MEMBERS Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members may laugh; perhaps their hearing is not as good as that of hon. members in other parts of the house; but they will find, if they look at Hansard, that is exactly what I said. Perhaps the error I have made, if I have made any, is being a little too conservative in seeking to preserve what I believe to be good traditions in the matter of parliamentary law and procedure. I feel it part of my duty to bring to the attention of the house any matters which affect developments in parliamentary law and procedure, and I was proceeding on that line to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer the question. .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer it.
I think I was very careful to say that there had to be some important reason why a member should resign-not only important, but a public reason. That would apply to the hon. member for Glengarry. I am very happy to say that my hon. friend immediately opposite is one of those who were courteous enough to say at the time that he thought it would be a pity if I were not allowed to be returned to the House of Commons.



LEON BLUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? I have noted that Mr. Leon Blum, former premier of France and a distinguished French statesman is on a special mission to Washington. Is there any possibility of Mr. Blum coming to Ottawa, and has the government extended an invitation to him?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to say that the government has already expressed to Mr. Blum its pleasure at the prospect of his visiting Ottawa during the course of his stay in Washington. I learned only this morning that it is possible that Mr. Blum may be in Ottawa before the end of the present week. I think I may say on behalf of this country that we shall welcome a visit from Mr. Blum at this time.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LESLIE A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct
a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he give the assurance that the Lord Strathcona Horse, a regiment which has had an historic association with the city of Winnipeg ever since the South African war, will continue and maintain its peacetime establishment-
James Horace King: Order. I would ask the
hon. member to put his question on the order paper.


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? Is there a possibility that a squadron of the Lord Strathcona Horse will be posted to the city of Winnipeg-


Hon DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: Answering the hon. members for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), I may say that anything is possible. I am aware of the historic significance which this great regiment has for the city of Winnipeg, and that will be taken into account when considering where the permanent headquarters of the regiment are to be located.



INQUIRY AS TO ALLEGED DESERTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with a Canadian by the name of McCloy who served in the United States army about the beginning of the war and then left that army, allegedly by desertion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Well. Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Let Mr. Speaker keep order. He does not need your help.


James Horace King: Order. I should hear the question first.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I
necessarily must say what the facts are before I can put the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Canadian Army


John George Diefenbaker: This man then joined the Canadian army, in 1939.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I must request the hon. member to ask his question. Under the rules of the house his question should be brief and to the point.


John George Diefenbaker: After being discharged in 1945 from the Canadian army he lived in Winnipeg, and was taken into custody-


James Horace King: The hon. member should put his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of deference, I cannot place the question before the minister unless the background is available.


James Horace King: I am very sorry; I want to be generous, but the hon. member should not make a speech; he must put his question for the minister to reply to.


John George Diefenbaker: My question now is, this man has been arrested under-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister a moment ago-


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


Gordon Graydon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, surely we have gone the limit to-day with respect to restricting an hon. member who desires to ask a question. Let us be fair to all parts of the house. We had to listen to-day to what I think was a great extension of the rules of the house when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) ended up his statement with a political speech.


Mr. ABBOTT:: You did not like it.


Gordon Graydon: I admit that it is a touchy spot with you too, and I do not blame you for objecting to the question, but surely the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has the right to ask a question.


James Horace King: I believe it is desirable, for the decorum and dignity of this house, that the ruling of the Speaker should not be discussed.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: May I ask a direct question?


Gordon Graydon: Order. There is a question of privilege before the house. Privilege comes first.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute. You cannot go on all day.


Gordon Graydon: Privilege comes first.

On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to ask a question of great urgency to a native-born Canadian who is about to be deported to the United States under an order in council making an offence retroactive. Will the Minister of Justice look into the case which I brought to his attention, that of a man from Winnipeg, in order to assure that this Canadian will not be deported under an order in council that makes retroactive-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I have already ruled on that question. It should be put on the order paper.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The man will be in the United States.
T Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: May I ask- the Minister of Justice a very simple question? Will he not delay the deportation of a man named McCloy under order in council P.C. 6577 until the house has had an opportunity to discuss the matter?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I do not think any hon. member of this house need feel any anxiety about the case of this brave Canadian veteran McCloy. The facts are not as had been stated to the hon. member for Lake Centre. This man was not in any sense a recent deserter, or alleged to be a recent deserter, from the American army. He had enlisted years ago in the American army and the allegation was that in 1927 he had become a deserter or had become absent without leave and remained absent without leave from that time until 1946. In 1939 he enlisted in the Canadian army and served overseas until the month of August, 1945.	'
As is well known to members of the house, since the order No. 6577 was tabled here, shortly after it was made, there was a reciprocal arrangement between Canada and the United States for the speedy return of deserters or soldiers absent without leave, but the spirit of that order was to deal with recent cases.
As soon as this case was brought to the attention of any one of the departments- the question is addressed to me, but the
Labour Conditions

order in council was made with the concurrence of five different ministers-it was immediately taken up with the American embassy here, and it was pointed out to them that it had never been intended that this order would apply to a case of that kind and arrangements are being discussed for the purpose of having it cleared up. In the meantime Mr. McCIoy has been released on bail, and it is understood that his bail will be extended indefinitely until the matter is finally settled. If necessary there will be either a withdrawal or a modification of this arrangement, because neither side ever intended it to apply to a case such as this one.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How simple that all was!



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the Prime Minister tell the house how many Canadian senators and members of parliament will be sent to represent Canada's interest at the forthcoming Operation Crossroad at Bikini Atoll?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Order my foot; that is a question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend sent me notice of his question. I shall regard it as a notice and seek to give him a reply to-morrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
/

[Stage Direction]
. On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour whether the Department of Labour has received a request from the united steelworkers union asking the government to convene a joint conference of the steel manufacturers and the representatives of the steel workers union to discuss the matter of wage increases?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: My hon. friend sent me notice of the question but I did not get to my office until just prior to the opening of the house. I have had a number of communications from the organization referred to; and if he will let the matter stand until to-morrow I will give him an answer.



REGIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD FOR QUEBEC- PAUL EMILE MARQUETTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I have a question for the Minister of Labour of which I sent him notice yesterday. Was Paul Emile Marquette of Montreal appointed to the regional war labour board on recommendation of the Canadian Congress of Labour? Has the minister been requested by the Canadian Congress of Labour to remove Mr. Marquette from this position? If so, what action has been taken in the matter?
Some hon. Members: Order.


James Horace King: I do not see any urgency in this question; it should be put on the order paper.


Major James William Coldwell: I disagree.



LAY-OFFS IN C.N.R. AUTOMOTIVE DEPARTMENT, WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alistair McLeod Stewart: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the fact that several hundred employees, many of them ex-servicemen, are to be laid off in the automotive department of the Canadian National Railways in Winnipeg?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: The hon. gentleman sent me a notice of his question yesterday. I asked the officers of my department to ascertain from the Canadian National Railways what 'the position was. I received the report tjiis morning and it reads:
The 'Canadian National Railways management advises that the net earnings position of the railway has precipitated necessity of reduction of certain staffs and it seems inevitable that there will be certain lay-offs in the Winnipeg area at an early date, probably some during April. The management has as yet no advice as to the number of employees that will he laid off or as to what classifications will be affected. That depends entirely on the result of the analysis that is now being made as to where reductions would be indicated.



PEACE CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in his capacity of Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the house and the Prime Minister know, a tentative date has been mentioned publicly for the convening of the peace conference at Paris as of May of this year. Can the Prime Minister give us

External Affairs
information, as to whether that tentative date still stands, or whether it is being advanced or brought back according to the exigencies of the situation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish I could answer the question. Up to the present, however, there has not been a definite date fixed for the conference which it was expected would be held in Paris early in May. I am rather hoping that before the present week is out it will be possible for the powers immediately concerned to inform the different governments of the exact date.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Without the least intention of infringing upon the extra-territorial privilege of the hon. member for^Peel in asking questions, may I ask the government whether someone has been designated to attend the funeral of the league of nations at Geneva?



RADIO BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
"soldier's wife" - REQUEST FOR DISCONTINUANCE
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: I will take the hon. gentleman's request into consideration.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): On March 29 I was asked a question by the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) with reference to a point raised by the member for Regina City in regard to a pensioner whose pension was reduced because he had been appointed to a position under the crown. I looked up the case in question and I find it is under the Militia Pensions Act and has no relation to the Department of Veterans Affairs or to service pensions. My hon. friend asked whether this was a violation of the Pension Act. It is not.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 6, to amend the Department of External Affairs Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as I explained at the time of its introduction, is to repeal section (3) of the Department of External Affairs Act, which was enacted in 1912 by the administration of Sir Robert Borden, and which provides that-
The member of the King's Privy Council for Canada holding the recognized position of First Minister shall be the 'Secretary of State for External Affairs . . .
As it stands the section constitutes a statutory requirement that the Secretary of State for External Affairs can be no one . but the Prime Minister. The present bill would remove this limitation and make it possible for some other person to occupy the position. The result of the present bill will be to place the "Department of External Affairs in precisely the same position as the other departments of government in respect of which there is no requirement that any particular person must occupy the position of minister. That is all there is to the present bill.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I desire first of all to say to the Prime Minister that some years ago in the House of Commons a very eminent counsel who sat in this chamber for a good many years was asked to what he attributed his great success in the courts of Canada. His answer was that it was probably attributable to the fact that when he had the judge supporting his case in court he never tried to argue with the judge. There does seem to be an analogy to that in the matter now before us, because to-day we have the government with us in respect to a change in the legislation dealing with external affairs.
While perhaps we should not deny to the Prime Minister the immediate fatherhood of this measure may I say that its ancestry, as I think the right hon. gentleman will agree, goes much beyond the party now in power. Almost continuously and consistently since 1943 this official opposition has made an appeal, and in many instances an urgent appeal, for legislation such as that now introduced. The appeal was made in 1943, again in 1944 and in 1945, and again at the beginning of this session. I think hon. members will recall, and by reference will see, that there is now on the order paper a resolution proposed by myself
47S
External Affairs

having in view the purpose which this legislation now purports to effect. I might read the salient terms of the resolution, which go I believe a considerable distance in indicating the need for the change at this time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I hope my hon. friend will not be too technical. If he is, I may decide to argue the point. However, I have not yet started to read the resolution, nor have I done more than suggest that I was going to give some salient points of it. Perhaps my hon. friend did not hear what I said. In the resolution I indicated that the Department of External Affairs had grown in size and importance to the point where a full-time minister was both vital and essential in the national interest.
In addition it will be recognized by every hon. member in this house that Canada's responsibility abroad has increased to the point where external affairs has become one of the major businesses of government and one of the principal concerns of parliament.
I shall not repeat what I said in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne when I dealt with this point, other than to say that it is a matter of vital necessity that a minister who has had the advantage of a close liaison or connection, knitting-in or meshing, with the men under him in the Department of External Affairs, should represent Canada at international gatherings. As I pointed out in my address at that time, without any reflection upon those who had represented Canada in a leading capacity at various international gatherings I was afraid that as time went on we should witness an extraordinary situation-that of the Prime Minister, because of his numerous and onerous duties in the domestic field, finding it impossible to attend all the international gatherings and having to substitute some other minister of the crown who may not always be conversant with the many moves that are taking place in the international field. We should then find ourselves with a delegation led by someone who perhaps while at the conference would have to learn many of the lessons on external affairs. This was one of the reasons which prompted me to place on the order paper for consideration in due course the resolution to which I have referred.
I wish to say to the Prime Minister that so far as our party is concerned we are prepared to accept and give support to the second reading of a bill which will enable this government to appoint someone as fulltime minister of external affairs. Most hon. members will realize, particularly those who

have gone to international conferences, that there is scarcely any nation in the world which is not led either by the head of the state, the prime minister, or the minister of foreign affairs. Australia, which is not as large a country as Canada, has had for some considerable time its own foreign minister, who in the conclaves of the world has done an exceedingly effective job on behalf of his country. Such nations as Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands, to say nothing of many smaller countries, are represented at international conferences by their prime ministers, the ministers of external affairs or foreign ministers. No nation of Canada's size and importance can go longer without a full-time minister of external affairs.
I have only this criticism to offer. I think the government mig^t properly have brought in this bill a year ago. After all, many pieces of legislation which contemplated the peacetime reconstruction era were brought in at the last session. We can no longer take the risk of going without this measure. We should have in harness at this very moment a minister of external affairs. The fact that on two occasions at least the Prime Minister has said that he will not, run in another general election is an additional reason why this matter should be taken care of.


Mr. McIVOR:: The Prime Minister is
capable of changing his mind.


Gordon Graydon: Previously there was none.
-whose only business shall be to deal with relations with foreign countries, and in our judgment Canada has reached a period in her history when we should follow the example of other countries in that respect, as. for example, the commonwealth of Australia.
This would indicate that through the years the commonwealth of Australia has given a lead in external affairs, and that it had set up its department before Canada did. At a later time it followed the course which so many nations had followed, that of appointing a separate full-time minister before we got around to it in Canada.
I would impress upon the Prime Minister those two points I have mentioned in connec-
External Affairs

tion with draftsmanship. I believe that upon reflection he will agree the house could not let the measure pass in its present form.
The official opposition takes the position that this measure represents a step in the right direction. Indeed we feel highly honoured that a notice of motion standing on the order paper in the name of an hon. member in this party has been accepted in principle by the government. May I commend the Prime Minister upon this belated departure in policy. I do suggest that if he were to follow more of the suggestions coming from this side of the house he, the country and parliament would be the better for it.
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar) Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the proposal now before the house. We are not recent converts to this point of view. My predecessor, the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, who was leader of this movement from its inception in 1933, used to offer the suggestion from time to time in the house that we needed a separate and full-time minister of external affairs.
We have always believed that Canada had grown to a stature, even during the years which intervened between the two wars, that entitled her to representation by a full-time minister. In saying this, let it be understood that I am not detracting in any way from the services rendered by the Prime Minister in that department. Let me make that perfectly clear.
I do believe however that the duties of the office of Prime Minister and those [DOT]of the Secretary of State for External Affairs are to-day so onerous that no one individual, no matter how capable, can prop, erly discharge them. In our opinion, therefore, the appointment of a full-time minister is long overdue. The very fact that we appointed last session and are reappointing this session a committee on external affairs makes it necessary that we have a minister who can devote his whole attention to the department and can sit with the committee. In the years I have been in the house-and before, because I read Hansard assiduously before I came-I have considered it tragic that so little attention has been given by Parliament to the affairs of this department.
I noted before the war that usually the *estimates of the Department of External Affairs came pretty well toward the end of the session. Occasionally by agreement among the parties in the house a day was set aside when an item might be discussed, but with the exception of a handful of people in parliament there were few who between the two wars really took the interest in external .affairs which that dpartment of government -warranted.

Whatever may have been Canada's position among the nations before the present war, I think we are all agreed that in every respect she has now attained the stature of full nationhood. We have the obligations that come with nationhood. We have in Ottawa the representatives of many governments of the world, in the persons of ambassadors and ministers, and we in turn are represented in many other countries. There was a time when perhaps a British ambassador or a British consul might represent Canada, but that is no longer true. While we have the closest association, and must maintain it, with the British commonwealth of nations, we must never forget that we are a nation in our own right. As we have discovered in these international conferences, the component parts of the British commonwealth of nations do not speak with a single voice. If that needed to be demonstrated it was evident at San Francisco, it was evident at London, and at the recent meeting of the security council it was demonstrated anew by the action of the representative of Australia.
I have felt for a long time, years indeed, that we should have a full time minister in charge of this department. Canada has been particularly fortunate, and the Prime Minister as minister of external affairs has been particularly fortunate, in the type of personnel that has been gathered together in the Department of External Affairs. Nothing impressed me more deeply than the capability and the breadth of vision of the advisers who accompanied us to San Francisco. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who was present at the meetings of the united nations organization and the assembly in London, came back with exactly the same report, that Canada's external affairs officials and advisers compared favourably with those of any other country in the world. I am glad to have this opportunity of paying this tribute to them.
Our status as a nation makes us independent, yet we are associated with the British commonwealth of nations by many ties which I hope will be continued throughout the years. Canada is a nation in her own right. She speaks at interntional conferences as a nation independent of the United States, independent of Great Britain-speaks always as Canada. I believe the time has come when we should assume all the obligations of that position. We should have responsible to this house a minister of external affairs who will be prepared from time to time to meet the external affairs committee of this house in order that we as a parliament may understand more completely

External Affairs
the international obligations of Canada and be more fully aware of the policies that are being followed.
In a statement which he made to the house this afternoon the Prime Minister referred to the fact that while Canada is not to be a member of the security council, she is to become a member of the commission dealing with atomic power, because of the importance of Canada's contribution in regard to that great and in some respects terrifying, in other respects encouraging, discovery, with the implications of which the world now has to deal.
I am speaking not only for myself but for those associated with me in my party. As I have said, for many years we have put forward resolutions urging the members of parliament to provide for the appointment of a minister of external affairs, and we are glad to see that that is to be done.
With regard to the point made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) at the conclusion of his remarks, that is a matter which I hope the Prime Minister will deal with at the proper time and in- the proper place. I do not think we can properly discuss the clauses of the bill on the motion for second reading.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the measure before the house meets with the unqualified approval of the members of the Social Credit group. We entertain very much the same ideas as have already been expressed by the leaders of the two other opposition groups in the house. To emphasize the truth of what was said by each of those leaders, it is only necessary to point out that we are faced with problems the like of which have never before impressed themselves upon the minds of men.
In addition to our need to maintain the most harmonious and cooperative relations with the sister states of the great British empire and commonwealth; in addition to our need to have the most cordial fellowship with the United States; in addition to our need to extend the hand of good fellowship and good neighbourliness to all nations of the world who are kindly disposed-in addition to all these we have certain special problems that face us in this age.
The first, whic-h. should be impressed on all of us in all countries, is the need of developing a technique of distribution among nations. Very little is said about this matter, which is one of the greatest causes for anxiety that I see on the horizon to-day. The cause of the present troubles in the world is fundamentally the inability to distribute the goods of the
world from nation to nation. That was fundamentally the cause of the last war and of the first world war as well. Instead of our talking about that cause and trying to remedy it, it seems to me that the nations of the world and the members of this house are talking about everything else. In the existence of that cause there is occasion for alarm.
It seems to me that the Department of External Affairs of Canada will have to study this whole matter of international distribution with the utmost care and formulate a solution very different from anything the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has ever mentioned in all his public utterances outside or inside this house. In order to emphasize that fact I should like to point out one thing which has developed during the war.
We have built at Sarnia a great rubber plant at a cost, I understand, of 851,000,000. The result of that splendid experiment and achievement is that we now are independent of all the world with respect to rubber. But in developing our own rubber supply we have put out of employment 100,000 people in, the various countries that used to supply us with rubber. The question must arise in the mind of every thoughtful man: what is going to happen to those 100,000 people? Undoubtedly we were sound in developing our rubber supply, and it may easily be argued that we have no responsibility whatsoever for the welfare of those 100,000 people. But in this age, when we might be plunged into a war because of the unhappiness of certain peoples, we must assume a measure of responsibility for the welfare of those people. The nations of the world are developing towards economic nationalism, as has been pointed out two or three times already in debates in this house; and the more nearly they develop towards that state of affairs the more serious this problem becomes. There are nations-Canada and the United States, for instance-so fortunately situated in the extent and great variety of their resources as to be able in large measure to support themselves, but there are other nations whose resources are so meagre, and so one-sided, shall I say, that they cannot be self-sustaining. This state of affairs, alone, which is an exceedingly serious one, could occupy the Department of External Affairs pretty well night and day for enough years at least to enable them to reach a solution of the problem, which they can suggest to our fellow nations as they meet them.
There is another matter which requires special care at this time. During the Bretton Woods debate I pointed out that commercial rivalries and commercial warfare are far more

External Affairs

dangerous than they have ever been in the whole previous history of the world. I have no desire to offend anyone, but let me mention frankly one nation, our great, friendly respected and honoured neighbour, the United States. Because of her tremendous resources and wealth and her vast productive potential, the United States is capable of penetrating the markets of almost any nation in the world and displacing, the products of the industries of those nations, throwing their people into the ranks of the unemployed and generally wrecking their economy. If the people of the United States so desired, having upset the trade balance between themselves and any other nation in the world, with the exception of Russia perhaps, they could acquire the fixed assets of that nation and virtually render it impossible for her to conduct a free and independent life. Somehow or other the nations of the world must discover a means of offsetting the great danger of economic warfare. I am quite disheartened sometimes when I reflect on how few members of this house ever give any attention whatsoever to this important matter. Yet it is one of the major causes of war, and always has been. It was one of the major causes of the last war.
Another serious problem which bulks large upon the horizon is the need for safeguarding national sovereignty. To me there is a situation in our house which is quite fantastic. May I illustrate it by what happened within the last few minutes. The member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was speaking of our being independent of Britain, and I believe it was the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) who broke out with applause for that statement and said "hear, hear."


Jean-François Pouliot: Independent of Britain and the United States-hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad that the hon. member is so outspoken that everyone will know that I am not misrepresenting him. I can sympathize with the hon. member for Temiseouata, but let me draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that last fall we met together in this house and accepted the united nations organization, under which apparently we give up more of the sovereignty of Canada to an external body than was ever taken from us by Great Britain in perhaps the last seventy-five years, and that external body was an organization under the control virtually of the United States. Anyone who faces the facts cannot gainsay that.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is getting rather far afield from the bill before the house, which

is to amend chapter 65 of the revised statutes of Canada. I think the discussion should be confined to the bill before the house and should not extend to a discussion of trade and commerce and the united nations organization.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in defence of the argument made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), I submit that the minister of external affairs will be bound by the policy of the government and by the policy of other organizations. There is a question now of abandoning part of our sovereignty and giving it to another organization called the UNO. Therefore it seems to me that the hon. member, the former leader of the Social Credit group, although I disagree entirely with him, is perfectly within his right as a member of parliament in discussing the question whether or not we should abandon our sovereignty to Great Britain, the United States and other nations comprising the UNO. I am for freedom of speech.


John Horne Blackmore: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I point out that I am simply developing the reasons why we need a highly technical, highly skilled and highly specialized body of men in charge of the external affairs of this nation. That is obvious, is it not? I am not colliding with the speaker's ruling at all, because I shall say nothing more on that point. But certainly to argue that what I was saying had nothing to do with this bill is to adopt a line of reasoning which I find it impossible to follow.


William Ross Macdonald: I must again point out that the matter of Canada's trade and consular appointments is in no way related to this bill. They come under a different department entirely. This bill is to amend an existing statute.


John Horne Blackmore: And the reason for
amending that statute must be found in the burden which is placed on the Department of External Affairs; consequently anything which tends to show how that burden has increased of late years must unquestionably be in order. I am not challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker. You will take the responsibility for my desisting along this line, but I will contend before any group of people in the future that I am perfectly in order in discussing the very matters that ought to be in the minds of all the members of the house when considering the Department of External Affairs.
There is one more matter which indicates how important it is that we have a full-time minister of external affairs. We need a greater

External Affairs
understanding to-day of the fundamental causes of international discord than I believe has ever been had by any nation in the past. We realize that the problems of Palestine, for example, may on very short notice plunge this nation into a war which might endanger our national existence. We have to bo kept fully informed upon all matters pertaining to problems of the kind, and we have to have men in our external affairs department who are not burdened with any other matters except these, in order that they may have the mature judgment and the utmost of diplomatic skill to enable Canada to play her part in guaranteeing not only her own security and safety but the security and safety of the rest of mankind.
For these four reasons which I have brought forward I believe we are completely justified in accepting the bill with enthusiasm and without any form of reservation.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: There is an aspect of this bill which I suggest hon. members thus far have overlooked. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has said that the bill has been encouraged by a resolution of his which is on the order paper. Perhaps he forgets that last year, and earlier than that, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did indicate his intention at some future date of bringing in the measure now before the house.
I do not rise at this time to take issue with the bill, but to point out what I think is a very important consideration arising out of its implications. The present Prime Minister of Canada has been minister of .external affairs since 1921.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While the government was in office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: While the government
was in office, excluding the years 1930 to 1935. Since 1921, this country has emerged as one of the leading middle powers of the world. A former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, during the first world war, under whom both Canada and the Department of External Affairs entered a new phase, occupied at that important period in the history of1 the world not only the post of prime minister but that of minister of external affairs. From 1921 to 1930 and from 1930 to the present time, Canada has developed from the position of a selfgoverning dominion to the full status of an equal and powerful nation among all the other nations of the commonwealth and nations of the world.
One would of course be exaggerating to attribute that remarkable development of our national life as a member in the family of states solely to one man; that I do not propose to do. But the undoubted fact is that the experience, the devotion and the farsightedness of the present Prime Minister of Canada have made him, as no other man in this country now is, equipped at this particularly difficult period in history to be not only Prime Minister of Canada but to act in the capacity-I trust, for some time to come as minister of external affairs. Reference has been made to the fact by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who graciously acknowledged the great record of achievement of the present leader of the house as Prime Minister and minister of external affairs, that we have in the Department of External Affairs one of the best manned departments in the government of Canada. As he said, at the international gatherings which he has attended and at the four which I have attended, the members of that department hold their own with any corresponding group from any other country. That did not arise simply by chance; it arose because of the determination of the minister in charge of that particular department to see to it that it was manned by the best men and women we could get from Canada into that particular branch of the public service. I believe that in discussing this measure the least we can do, not only on this but as well on the other side of the house, regardless of our political affiliations, is to acknowledge what Canada owes to the present Prime Minister in his capacity of Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It is said that the time has come, not only that we should have a separate minister but that the nomination of that minister should be made forthwith. I would respectfully point out that at the present time the Minister of External Affairs in South Africa is the Right Hon. Jan Smuts, the Prime Minister of that country. The Right Hon. Peter Fraser, as Prime Minister of New Zealand, still represents his country at important international gatherings such as that at San Francisco and at the first general assembly in London of the united nations. In Australia it is true that Mr. Evatt has assumed for the first time the post of minister of external affairs without that post being attached to the office of prime minister. But it is to be noted that within five years Australia has had no less than three different prime ministers, one of whom was quite ill; one on his own admission did not expect to be able to hold the post of prime minister very long, and it may be presumed that in that great country there
63260-31i
External Affairs

were special reasons for creating, during one of the critical periods of the war, a separate minister of external affairs. But I would point out to the hon. member for Peel and he will recall that in London, Australia was represented, veiy ably, by two subsequently appointed resident ministers of the crown, neither of whom holds the portfolio of minister of external affairs in Australia, in the persons of Mr. Makins, a cabinet minister of that commonwealth, and of Mr. Beasley, now the resident minister high commissioner in the United Kingdom.


Gordon Graydon: In order to keep the record straight, my hon. friend will agree with me, I think, that there were special domestic conditions in Australia which prevented the foreign minister from attending.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know what the alleged domestic conditions were. I am simply meeting the argument of my hon. friend by pointing to the fact that Australia was not represented by her prime minister. I do not say this by way of a criticism; presumably Australia had her own reasons, but she was not represented by her minister of external affairs.
But the big and cogent argument with respect to this particular matter is this. The house should not forget that one of the vital issues which in the last federal election we on this side laid before the people of the country was that the present Prime Minister as leader of tlie Liberal party should be returned because he was the one man in Canada best able to represent us during the period of his prime ministership at current important international conferences. That was one of the main issues in the election.


Mr. SKEY:: Not in my riding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, not in his riding, but his riding does not represent the whole of this country. The fact is that we on this side of the house represent for the time being, and perhaps for a longer time than many hon. members believe, the majority of the people of this country. The people decided that, following the most difficult period in the history of the world, following a war involving the most fantastic experiences which man has known in his history, this country wanted to be represented at international gatherings, not by the only man available but by the best man available-the present Prime Minister of Canada.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I should like to ask the minister if he is suggesting that the Prime Minister is the only possible man in the whole of Canada who can satisfactorily represent the countiy at these gatherings.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just said that the Prime Minister is not the only man available, but he is the best man available.


John Horne Blackmore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the truth of what the minister is saying, but I would ask Your Honour if you can tell in what respect the words the hon. gentleman is uttering now have anything to do with this bill.


William Ross Macdonald: I would say the minister is definitely in order. The purpose of the bill is to make it possible to separate the office of Prime Minister and that of Secretary of State for External Affairs, so the remarks are in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is in order because he speaks of the present incumbent of the post.


John Horne Blackmore: I cannot see how it has anything to do with the passing of this bill.


William Ross Macdonald: Order; I have given my ruling.


John Horne Blackmore: And I am questioning it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is another aspect, Mr. Speaker, which I think the house and the country will not overlook at this time, because this matter is one of tremendous importance. During the war important conferences were held at Quebec and, recently, at Washington. Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt conferred on extremely important matters affecting not only the welfare of the united nations but that of the post-war world. On two occasions these conferences were held at Quebec. The Prime Minister, representing Canada, participated in many of these discussions. To-day he is perhaps the only living man at the head of a government who has had constant contact with these two great world leaders, one of whom is no longer living and the other no longer in power. The Prime Minister of Canada is the only contact of continuity, from one point of view, with respect to many of the matters discussed and decided at those important meetings. More important still was the recent conference at Washington with respect to the important scientific discovery of atomic energy. The present Prime Minister of Canada, conferring as he did with Mr. Truman, the President of the United States, and Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, in the light of his discussions at Quebec and in the light of his great experience during the war, being the sole survivor of that trio, undoubtedly was able to contribute immeasurably to the important discussions on atomic energy. And I do not think I am

External Affairs
being indiscreet when I say I am sure the present Prime Minister of Great Britain would be the first to acknowledge, as he has said in my presence on two occasions within the past three months, when he said: "It is fortunate for the world that at this time we have at the head of certain governments men of the experience and prestige of the present Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of South Africa."
So at this time I rise not only in respect of a matter that has to do with the welfare of our country and the pursuit of its foreign policy, but to pay tribute to a distinguished member of this house, a great prime minister in war and a great prime minister in peace, and one of the most experienced and mature minds, in the field of international relations, to be found in any country in the world at the present time.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) has spoken very well about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but I regret to say that in some respects he has stolen my speech. I always listen to him with great pleasure, as I do to the other hon. members who have spoken. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydion) spoke as a jurist who might be sitting on an international court somewhere in Europe. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke as a good Canadian, and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) made a delightful speech in his own way.
Of course opinions are free. This bill is very short, but it covers a very wide field. It covers the whole external policy of Canada. The question is not so much that of changing the incumbent of the post, though the Prime Minister knows what personal regard and admiration I have for him. The question is whether or not Canada will be what it has been described as being among the nations of the world. We hear the finest speeches about the role of Canada, about Canada being a great nation. I agree with that, but I always disagree with the sordid idea of making Canada in the first place a small nation and afterward making Canada a middle nation or middle power, adding "power" to "middle" to deceive the universe about the real role of Canada. Canada has been minimized by the three big powers who want to control the destinies of the world, but who are unable, unqualified and incompetent to do so. They are only troublemakers who come to secret arrangements on other things, arrangements which they are ashamed to publicize. They are incompetent to stop the evil menace they have started.
Here we are with Canada being described as one of the great nations of the world. I agree that Canada should be a great nation, that it should be considered as such and should be invited to participate when decisions are made. Canada was not elected to the security council; we had to take it for granted1 that what' was decided by the representatives of the three big nations was good for us. "Take that cure; it is good for you, my boy. Take your medicine; it is good for you. Take that spanking; it is good for you. That is good for you. Pay for us; it is good for you. Give to us; it ia good for you." We have to receive the prescription for our external policy from other nations, and here we come to the abandonment of part of sovereignity, which means that the Canadian people, those living within this country, will have no complete freedom and no liberty if our country has none. I regret that a gentleman with the intelligence of the former leader of the Social Credit group should deny freedom of speech to the point of being surprised when a member of parliament says he wants this country to be free from England as well as free from the United States.


John Horne Blackmore: Surely the hon. member is misrepresenting what I said. I did not deny any freedom of speech; I was denied freedom of speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend should
not be angry. Hansard speaks for itself, and we will read it to-morrow.


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon. member for Lethbridge said he did not intend to $ay-


John Horne Blackmore: I did not say it; it is not a question of intention.


William Ross Macdonald: -I am sure his statement will be accepted by the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: I quite agree with you, sir, that he did not say it, but he did it, which is worse.


John Horne Blackmore: That is not right at all; I did not deny the hon. member freedom of speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad to have so converted my hon. friend that he agrees with me now, but I must qualify what I have said.


William Ross Macdonald: Order; I
understand-


Jean-François Pouliot: I have accepted everything the hon. gentleman has said.
External Affairs


William Ross Macdonald: I understand the hon. member for Temiseouata accepts the statement which was recently made by the hon. member for Lethbridge.


Jean-François Pouliot: Every bit of it. I must qualify what I have said regarding the independence of this country. I do not mean that this country must be independent of the people of Great Britain and of the United States, not at all. What I wish to qualify in my former statement is that in my humble view Canada should be independent of all those who are the official representatives of any other country, France, England, The Netherlands, China and so forth, to make her own decisions regarding our external policy, regarding the relations of Canada with other nations. That, is why I find that I cannot subscribe to the united nations organization. Perhaps I am ahead of my time; but when we see the trouble that is existing throughout the world to-day and when we read column after column and page after page of the papers telling us of the intrigues that have been taking .place in New York and in all other places where there have been UNO conferences, are we to be governed by those people whom we do not know? I asked the question the other day. If I were in the United States I would favour Governor Dewey of the state of New York and I would vote Republican. If I were in England I would be very much embarrassed to decide between the two main parties, now that the Liberal party is dead in England. In Russia I would not be at liberty to express any opinion. It is these three big countries that rule the world now. It is the labour government in England; it is the democratic party in the United States and it is the government of Soyiet Russia joined together. Sometimes they do not agree among themselves in sharing the spoils but they dictate as to what we shall do. I am against it. I believe in the sovereignty of Canada, in the complete and full sovereignty of Canada, just as much as I believe in the freedom and liberty of the Canadian citizen, if one man is ever to be so named officially. I believe in liberty, and I cannot conceive how citizens of any country could be free when the country itself is under the yoke of other nations. This I cannot subscribe to.
We have representatives throughout the world. Here in Canada we are young; we are childish, we are naive; we are credulous; we talk of diplomats. They are just commercial agents. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said it last year or the year before. The high commissioner for Great 
Britain is only a commercial agent; so are our high commissioners. They come under the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They should be under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have high regard for our high commissioners, especially for one of them whom I know very well. He is a former judge, my old friend, Mr. Justice Davis, high commissioner for Canada in Australia. What has he to do except looking after commercial interests over there? I admit that on certain occasions the high commissioner for Canada to Great Britain has something else to do. He is known as the go-between between the dominion government and His Majesty's government in England. That is a particular case, but all the others are there precisely to promote trade. They are there as consuls de luxe, a little above consuls general.
I said that we are naive. I take the Parliamentary Guide and I look at it. For a long time we had no ambassadors in this country. We had one high commissioner, but no others. We had several consuls. Well, these consuls were given official precedence as follows:
Ambassadors, foreign ministers and foreign consuls general accredited to Canada, though not .provided for in the table of precedence, are given a courtesy precedence, the ambassadors and ministers following immediately after the lieutenant .governors of the provinces, and the consuls general immediately after the prime ministers of the .provinces. The high commissioner and other representatives of the British commonwealth have been granted precedence immediately after tbe moderator of the Presbyterian church in Canada.
Sir, the gallery has been cleared of members' friends and relations to make place for the so-called diplomats. There is no one in the gallery facing the chair and very few people in the gallery to your left. These galleries were held in petto for the so-called diplomats and they do not even come to hear the discussions on a bill of this importance. It would have been beneficial to listen not to my remarks, but to those which have been made so ably by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by the former leader of the opposition and the other hon gentlemen who have spoken; but the so-called diplomats shine by their absence to-day.
What is the present position of Canada with regard to trade, for instance? As high commissioners' duty is only to look after trade and as they come under the Secretary of State for External Affairs, it is incumbent upon them to be completely independent of the official representatives of any other country, including Great Britain, the United States, and the part of the world to which

External Affairs
they are assigned to perform their duty. Their duty is not to promote English trade, United States trade or Chinese trade; their duty is to promote Canadian trade and they should be independent of all these agencies. They should not be under the tutelage of the ambassadors of the United Kingdom, they should be independent of the high commissioners, independent of the consuls of Great Britain. Why? Because if there is the least difficulty respecting trade they must not look after the interests of any other country; they must look first after the interests of Canada. That is my point of view with regard to the usefulness of high commissioners and consuls general. - I think there is only one in the United States at the present time - and all the commercial attaches that we have throughout the world. What can we expect with regard to trade if these gentlemen have to give obedience to any English gentleman who is there, have to report to him or have to seek his advice?
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was perfectly right when he said that we should have a Canadian policy applied to trade. I remember distinctly when a well-known imperialist who was the former member for York-Sunbury, Mr. Hanson, and a former leader of the opposition in this house was sitting here and I said to him that perhaps it was not the time for Canada to be politically independent of the United Kingdom. I said that during the war, but I also said on the same occasion that Canada should be economically independent of Great Britain. I said that if the time ever came to choose between the interest of Great Britain and any other country, France as well as any other, on the one hand and that of Canada on the other, our choice should unquestionably be Canada. I will choose Canada, and I shall try to help my fellow-Canadians. That is the byword that should be given to all the men who come under the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Our only hope, our only life-preserver to prevent Canada from falling into bankruptcy is a resumption of our prewar trade with all the nations of the world, not by way of gift, not by the Santa Claus policy, but by actually receiving payments for what we sell them. That is my point of view; I may be wrong. But I believe that in the event of any discussion, or in the event of a division of opinion, all the men under the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or under the Minister of Trade and Commerce - all those who represent Canadian interests overseas must be one to defend and promote Canadian interests and trade, as well as any other matters.
We hear some say the Prime Minister is a great man. I believe so. I believe his name will be written in golden letters in the annals of Canada as a man who wanted his country to be one of the greatest in the world, a man who has acquired world-wide fame, one of the most able conciliators to be found in diplomatic circles.
I agree with all that. And that is precisely why I was so much disappointed and my heart was so full of sorrow when I thought of the Big Three who were meeting together, and talking so psst, psst, psst-but who did not invite the Prime Minister of Canada, so as to have the benefit of his wisdom and vision and perhaps save the situation.
The right hon. gentleman has the prestige of a quarter of a century or more as Prime Minister of Canada. He has the knowledge of the past, and the knowledge of great men of the past. He knows that, although it may be a matter of regret to all, when he thinks he has performed his duty, he may retire.
But now he is opening the way for the creation of another department. Everybody is enthusiastic for it. Well, I know there are some able men in the cabinet, men for whom I have deep respect. But that is not enough. If we want Canada to be respected through and through by the other nations of the world, then the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs must be considered by the government of this country as the most important in the interests of Canada. The man who will be in charge of that department must have enough prestige to have influence within the cabinet, and to impose Canadian views upon his colleagues when they are about to jump the fence because of sentimentality.
If the Prime Minister made a success of his term as Secretary of State for External Affairs it was precisely because he was Prime Minister of Canada. Without his learning, without his sagacity, without his shrewdness, or his experience, and had he not had the prestige of Prime Minister of a country I consider the greatest in the world, he would not have succeeded half as well.
Therefore we must be cautious. It is not a matter of the Prime Minister's letting anyone get into his shoes as Secretary of State for External Affairs-although I know there are some able ministers. The point is that the next Secretary of State for External Affairs in Canada shall at the same time be the Prime Minister, in spite of this legislation, so that he may control the destinies of this country throughout the world. It will be a hard fight. It will no longer be a matter of conciliation. Rather it will be one of facing interests that are ready to do anything to control the trade of the world, the riches of
External Afjairs

the world, the natural resources of the world. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will have to watch all those racketeers in international finance who want to control all we have in this country, and all there is in the world. A man will need the highest of all qualities in order to defend our birthright and to protect our interests. He shall not be governed by sentimentality; rather he shall be governed by a word which has been deprecated-he shall be governed by patriotism. For a time everyone would raise his shoulders when patriotism was mentioned, when it was called nationalism. Now the word has changed; it is called isolationism. Am I an isolationist if I want my country to prosper, if I want my country to be the greatest in the world? I am not an isolationist. I am a patriot, and I want Canada to be what she is described to be.
Otherwise let us speak no more about the greatness of Canada. Let us say that we are a colony, but we have no reason to be impressed by our creditors from other nations who come here, look at us from the galleries and say, "Those are the people who make the gifts; how silly they look!" I do not say that they use that expression, but we read that in their eyes.
Let us not be concerned about them. Let us have that dignity that is required of all those who are at the helm of all nations. Let us think of the present time and of the future; let us not be impressed by anyone from out- [DOT] side. Let us think first of the citizens of our own country. Let us think first of our country-and that does not mean that we are unwilling to deal with any other nation. But when we do so, it will be done in the interests of Canada and for the protection of our fellow citizens.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house is to amend the Department of External Affairs Act, which was passed in 1927. The amendment is not as simple as it looks, because there are many principles involved.
While I would speak with great respect about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and about the hard work he and his officials have done in the department, and while I have respect for his wide experience, I would offer some constructive objections to the proposed policy.
While I cannot speak with authority respecting the policy of this party, and would speak only as a private member, might I say that our policy has been consistent. Notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, the hope of the world is that France and Great Britain will work together.

I do not wish to discuss external affairs at this time, and shall be content only to speak concerning the principle involved in the bill. It must be remembered that the policy of the [DOT] mother country is to restore France to the great nation she has always been in the past. I hope our friends from Quebec will not forget that.
Speaking back in 1938, and paying tribute to what the Prime Minister had done, I said:
Under our constitutional practice, however, as the Prime Minister is 'aware, seeing that he has had a great deal of experience in diplomatic -affairs, it is the duty of parliament to inquire into estimates such as those we have before us tp-day.
I pointed out that on the government of the day rests the responsibility for the conduct of external affairs, and not on the opposition. We as an opposition should not act as life-preservers for the government because on the government of the day as long as they are the government of the day is the onus and responsibility for the conduct of Canada's external affairs. We are spending on this Department of External Affairs now a total of four and one-third million dollars.
The question arises as to the cause and effect of the proposed amendment. The external affairs policy to-day is totally different from what it was in 1927 when this statute which it is now proposed to amend was passed. After all is said and done, external affairs, as a great textbook writer, Walter Lippmann, said, should be largely a matter of what one might call a chartered accountant's policy by which you strike a balance sheet of assets and liabilities and decide as a country what commitments you have to meet and what you will be able to do with them in the event of war. Thai is a very good definition.
As I see it, the foreign policy of this country should be based on two principles. It will be remembered that when the proposal to appoint parliamentary assistants was up a couple of years ago I stated that I did not believe in the principle, although I understand it has worked out very well in some departments. I know the Prime Minister has a heavy load to carry in this particular department, and at that time it was suggested that a parliamentary assistant should fill this office instead of a minister of the crown. That policy was adopted with regard to other departments.
I do not think it is in the interest of responsible government that representatives of the opposition parties should be sent abroad on external affairs missions to represent the government. I am not objecting merely to spending money and I always believe it is a

External Affairs
good thing for members of parliament to travel. The principle was adopted of sending these deputations abroad a few years ago to the league. First, I think the Secretary of State was a delegate once and now it is continued on foreign affairs. The government of the day must accept responsibility alone for foreign affairs.
There are a great many people in this country who are becoming alarmed at the way our foreign affairs are being conducted. They are comparing the principles which were laid down by the government and by others before this war with those being laid down to-day. In 1938 I suggested to the Prime Minister of the day that he should avail himself of the facilities of the radio, and I believe he did that a little later on. On March 24, 1938, I proposed that to the Prime Minister and, as I say, that practice was carried out during the war. If that had been done in connection with external affairs I do not think there would be the criticism there has been. I suggest to the Prime Minister that there should be an empire conference of the dominions on cooperation and coordination if this amendment is passed. This has been suggested for many years and it is the only way of settling these problems. That should be done instead of sending abroad these deputations to which I have referred. There should be a meeting of the dominions to lay down a common, after the war, empire policy. As has been said by President Poincaire of France, we are the hardest country in the world with which to make a treaty, as Britain always spoke with so many divergent views.
I object to the amendment because the Department of External Affairs of to-day is not the same as the department that was set up under the act of 1927. It has been expanded, and we are assuming responsibility which it was never intended the department should take under responsible government. I have looked into this matter for a long time. We are a country of only 10,500,000 people and we are spending $4,300,000 on this particular department. When I see the deviations which have been made from the statute of 1927 in our foreign policy I become alarmed and many thoughtful people are becoming alarmed over what is going to happen to our policy.
In conclusion, I wish to say that a great many thoughtful people believe that this work could be carried out by a parliamentary assistant. Are we to have a foreign minister like the old country? I have referred to the fact that all Britain's foreign ministers were trained men, and also their permanent officials on diplomacy, such as Spring-Rice and Lindsay at
Washington. If the Prime Minister wants this particular bill to pass, aid very well and good, but I suggest that the province of Ontario should receive some consideration for such a new minister, especially the Toronto district, which has not had a cabinet minister since the present government came into office, and even long before that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word before second reading is given. First of all, may I say that my reason for introducing this bill has been to further not only the wishes of many hon. gentlemen opposite but my own wishes as well. I think I have made it clear from time to time that I was not over-anxious to carry the extra burdens of the Department of External Affairs in addition to those of the Prime Minister. I certainly would not be carrying both portfolios at the present time if it were not that the questions which are uppermost in this and other countries to-day are for the most part international questions which call for as much in the wray of experience and knowledge as it is possible for one to command, and also for the fact that the two departments, the department of the Prime Minister and that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs have been so interlocked for the past thirty or forty years that the separation of those two departments at a given moment is not something that can be very readily brought about.
Let me say a word first in regard to the latter point. I know that hon. gentlemen are anxious to know why it is, being desirous of being relieved of certain burdens, one has not found it possible to find that relief up to the present time. In that connection I have to explain the position of the Prime Minister when he comes into office as contrasted with that of other ministers of the crown. As hon. gentlemen know, when a minister other than the Prime Minister assumes a portfolio he goes into a department of state which is already thoroughly organized and has been organized for years past. His department has a deputy head; it has a secretary; it has its various branches; it has its staff of civil servants who know all the aspects of the work of the department and who possess the accumulated knowledge and information of which the department has become the repository over many years.
When the Prime Minister assumes offices he enters what to all intents and purposes is an all but completely empty office. If he is fortunate enough to have had them, he takes with him one or two secretaries who have served him in his capacity as leader of the opposition if he comes into office after having

External Affairs

been the leader of the opposition. Otherwise he has no officers whatever in his department until he has had an opportunity to organize the Prime Minister's office. He has no deputy head; he has no secretary of his department as such; he has no leading officials as such. There may be a few stenographers and typists and possibly a few members of the service who have had to do with the filing of communications. He has to ask himself immediately whether those particular officials who have been serving political opponents are the ones whom he wishes to have continue in the office with him having regard to all the intimate affairs of government with which the Prime Minister finds he is confronted. I am happy to say that I have found that it was not necessary to change these members of the service to any extent, and one of the reasons is that they have been so few in number.
The one criticism of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) with regard to this present step was that it was not taken two or three years ago. ff the measure is to be criticized for coming so late, my criticism would be that it did npt come many years ago, and in particular that it did not come at the time when his leader, the then Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, was prime minister of Canada and also secretary of state for external affairs. I am wholly right, I believe, when f say that when Lord Bennett became prime minister he had previously entertained the view that it would be desirable to separate the two offices, but he had been in office for only a very short time before he expressed quite frankly the view that it would not be wise to separate the two offices. He found that the Department of External Affairs was in many important particulars concerned with the work that the Prime Minister's office would have to undertake in connection with very many of . the questions that came up, and throughout the five years that he was in office he continued to hold the two positions. If those positions had been separated during the term of Mr. Bennett's prime ministership of this country it would have meant that we would have had a separate minister of external affairs in 1935. I mention 1935 as a significant date because in the years immediately following, as all hon. members know, the question of foreign relations became a matter of grave concern not only for a secretary of state for external affairs but very much a matter of deep concern to the prime minister. Those were the years when we were approaching the possibility of war in Europe, and it fell to my lot to have the administration of both 
positions at that time. I should have found it perilous and indeed impossible to have separated those two positions at that particular time, and had they been separated I am sure I am quite right when I say that once we came to the period of the war, it would have been almost imperative for the Prime Minister to hold the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs as well as the office of Prime Minister. There would otherwise have been duplication of the work all the way through with resulting confusion. Through the period of the war the work of the two departments became necessarily more intertwined than ever. May I say to hon. members of the house that, so far as the Prime Minister's office to-day is concerned nearly all the officials on whom he relies in the Prime Minister's office have been seconded to that office from the Department of External Affairs. It has been necessary to have experienced officials. Experienced officials, with like qualifications, were not to be found in any other department of government or outside the government service. More than that, let me say in passing, there can be no better field of training for the officials of the Department of External Affairs than the Prime Minister's office. I think it is very desirable, when these departments are separated, as I hope they will be before very long, that some members of the Department of External Affairs should continue to serve in the Prime Minister's office and to obtain, while there, all the knowledge they possibly can on questions that are all-important in government. It is the best school of training for the young men and women who are to be entrusted with the larger responsibility, of later filling great positions and representing our country in other lands.
And so it is that if these offices were separated immediately a good deal of care would have to be exercised in untwining the threads that have formed so complete a strand uniting thq two offices. If it were not for that difficulty I can assure hon. members that the severance would have been made some considerable time before this. As an illustration. of how much this is the case I might mention that at the present time, so far as the Prime Minister's office is concerned, all the accounting of that office and practically all its business administration is managed from the Department of External Affairs and has been so managed since 1912.
I would remind hon. members that when the act creating the Department of External Affairs was introduced by Sir Robert Borden in 1912, it provided:

External Affairs
The member of the King's Privy Council for Canada holding the recognized position of First Minister shall be the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in this act he is hereunder referred to as "the minister."
Sir Robert Borden did not insert that clause without having very strong and good reasons at the time for so doing, and as I have pointed out, Lord Bennett, when he was prime minister, allowed that clause to remain in the act, having the very best of reasons for feeling it was essential that the Department of External Affairs should be so closely united with the Prime Minister's office. As I have just said, I have found, particularly through the years of war, and, indeed, in no less degree since, that it was imperative that the Prime Minister should have the closest possible contact with the officials of the external affairs department, thus bringing him in immediate touch, as he only could come in immediate touch, with those who were representing Canada in all the different countries in which we have missions, and also all who were representing Canada at important international gatherings.
I pause for a moment to refer lion, members to the estimates as they have been presented to this house for the present year. Hon. members will see in a moment to what an extent much of the business that would otherwise have to be separately provided for in the Prime Minister's estimates is to-day provided for in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. In this year's estimates for 1946-47 there is provided for the Prime Minister's office a total of $78,073, and for the Department of External Affairs, $2,436,325. That speaks for itself of the extent to which these two departments have become interlocked, and that over a period of thirty-four years. I want the house to understand this very clearly because some people may think that I am desirous of holding on to more in the way of administration than in fact I desire to do. A main reason, I wish to repeat, why a complete division of the two departments had not been made before this is that it will involve, when finally made, a very considerable readjustment of what will have to be provided in connection with the Prime Minister's office and also changes of importance in the Department of External Affairs as well.
I appreciate the solicitude of hon. gentlemen opposite for my health and strength and all the rest of it that on occasions they have been kind enough to express. But I take all that with a grain of salt. I must say, I ask myself, just why do they want me out of this office? If I were not of some value to
the country as head of the Department of External Affairs, I am certain they would be glad to see me stay there, and they would not be asking me to retire as quickly as possible. As I say, I question a little what some of them, at least, may have in mind, but I agree with them that as soon as matters can be properly arranged with due regard to the public interest, it is desirable that the two departments should be separated.
But I come then to the question of whether at this particular moment it is best to make that change. The first step is being taken now. It is a wholly necessary step in that we are removing what up to this time has been at the instance of parliament a bar to anyone other than the Prime Minister * holding that office. I am hopeful that very shortly another step may be taken, though I cannot at the .moment say just how soon. That., I know, is the main question in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, how soon are we going to get this man out of that particular position? I wish I could satisfy my hon. friend, the member for Peel on that, but he will just have to wait and see in regard to that, as to much else. May I remind my hon. friend, when he undertakes to tell me what should be done in the Department of External Affairs, that I have had experience in that department which runs nearly to twenty years. Such experience as he has had in international affairs has resulted,
I think, from my own act in appointing him as a delegate to the United Nations conference on international organization at San Francisco, also a member of the Canadian delegation to the preparatory commission of the united nations, and still later as an alternate delegate of the first session of the general assembly of the united nations. I am glad to see that he has profited somewhat by that experience. But let me tell him that twenty years experience with international affairs is worth a great deal more than one year, or a few months, and that if he had had a little wider experience I think he might have been somewhat more cautious in suggesting that the changes he proposes should be made at this particular moment.
I ask myself this question: with what countries has Canada very important relations at the present time? First of all there are our relations with the United Kingdom and other parts of the British commonwealth; there are our relations with the United States, with France, with China, and with Russia. This house knows that the problems we have in all these relationships have not grown up in the last few days, or weeks, or years; they have come into being over the years, and with
63260-32i
External Affairs

respect to them, wide knowledge and information is a very great asset in reaching highly important decisions. The movement'of international affairs is so rapid in these days that unless one has some of the direct knowledge of the background out of which these situations have sprung it would be next to impossible with respect to many of them to make with any sense of security the decisions which are essential if the proper steps are to be taken. I shall give but one example of what I mean. I ask the house this question: supposing I were to resign to-morrow the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs, what would the reaction be in Russia to that resignation? Would it be represented that I still commanded the confidence of the parliament and people of Canada in international affairs, or would it be represented that, having taken the position which I have taken in the interests of this country, this House of Commons and the people of Canada hold a very different view with respect to the manner in which I have discharged my responsibilities? That is something which has not occurred to my hon. friend. But I tell him that considerations of the kind in international relations are vital in reaching decisions as to what particular moment it is best for changes to be made.
Reference has been made, very kindly, oh the part of my colleague the Secretary of State. (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) to what it may mean at some international gatherings at this time to have the experience of such a person - such a great leader-as Jan Smuts, who holds the position of Minister of External Affairs as well as Prime Minister and whose influence at these gatherings arises out of the great part which he has taken in international affairs over the years. It is not for me to say whether or not a new minister of external affairs coming into office to-morrow would be able, in the critical situations which have to be dealt with at some of the international gatherings which are to take place this year, to render, perhaps, the same service to Canada as one who has known at first hand the international situation as it has grown up over the years. As has been referred to this afternoon I have had -and I am very proud of it, and I believe it is an asset of national value-a very close and intimate association with both Mr. Churchill when he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and with the late President Roosevelt of the United States. Very few men living to-day know what was in the minds of . these men when certain decisions were made, as well as I do myself; and of some of these

decisions, may I say, I think I have of those who are in office to-day, an almost exclusive knowledge. I say this in no boasting spirit but I know the value of authority in some things when one is speaking at international gatherings, and I know also the value of personal acquaintance and friendship with leading men in different parts of the world, and of having had what grows out of such an intimate association in years like those of the recent past.
I want to say this to my hon. friends opposite: I am prepared to accept from them as much in the way of advice as they may wish to tender and to consider it very carefully. But there is one group of gentlemen to whose advice and counsel and opinion I must give even more attention than to theirs, and that is, the colleagues who sit with me in the government, and the hon. members who through many years have been my loyal supporters in this House of Commons. When it comes to the matter of the responsibility of government for foreign affairs in times like the present one's colleagues have to be consulted, their views taken into consideration and their wishes considered as well as one's own. I have not found among my colleagues thus far a desire that I should give up this particular post at, this particular time, nor have I found that wish among members of my party.
After all, it is our responsibility to govern. Having been sent here for that purpose, having been sent here, as the Secretary of State, without possibility of any contradiction, said, by the Canadian people because they believed that this particular government was best qualified to deal with external affairs at a time which was very critical in the world, that responsibility is something which in fact I have to recognize in my obligation to the people of Canada.
I say these things that hon. members may realize that it is not all just as easy to bring about a change as they themselves may think. I am anxious to lighten the load in as many directions as I can. Thank God, I have around me ministers who are taking more of it from my shoulders day by day. It might appear that I am carrying a great deal of the load. I have to take the responsibility for what is said and done, but if hon. members will notice how matters related to external affairs have been dealt with in considerable part by one minister after the other they will realize that the burden of the Department of External Affairs is not wholly on the shoulders of any one man, but is shared by a large part of [he ministry.

External Affairs
That I say simply to clear up what my hon. friend seems most concerned about, namely as to when I am to get out of this particular position. May I say what I have in mind is that I know hon. members are very anxious to discuss external affairs at an early stage of the session; also that they are anxious to have the estimates of the Department of External Affairs referred at any stage to the committee on external affairs. I had thought that if it suited the convenience of the house I might try to bring forward the debate on external affairs within another fortnight, and as soon as the house had passed an item, refer the estimates at once to a committee, where they might be gone into thoroughly. But I must say to my hon. friend that I do not think it would be in his interests, in the interests of this house or in the interests of this country for me to attempt within the next few weeks to have one of my colleagues appointed as Secretary of State for External Affairs and put upon his' shoulders the responsibility of conducting the first discussion and the main discussion we shall have on external affairs.
1	must take that responsibility myself. I hope it may. be the last time I shall have to assume it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Repeal.
Gordon Graydon: In speaking on second reading I believe I made mention of the draftsmanship of this clause. Has the Prime Minister given consideration to that? If I may say so, I think it is important.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been giving consideration to it. There may be some technical advantage in further amending the act respecting the Department of External Affairs, but I really think what is now proposed is quite sufficient, for the reason that the original bill itself provided for a Secretary of State for External Affairs. Section
2	of that bill is as follows:
There, shall be a department of the government of Canada to be called the Department of External Affairs, over which the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall preside.
That makes provision - for a secretary of state to preside over a Department of External Affairs. Then the Salaries Act provides:
These salaries of the following ministers, members of the King's privy council for Canada, shall be as follows, that is to say:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
So that S10,000 is voted for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the act defines him as a minister. It seems to me, therefore, that all that is necessary to meet the situation to which my hon. friend has referred is fully covered. The act makes provision for the department; it makes provision for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be at the head of the department; another act defines him as a minister; and wherever the word "minister" is referred to in this act the minister would be the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Major James William Coldwell: If I might just ask a question, because I heard this comment, I understand that the salary provision becomes operative only if a separate minister is appointed for the department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right. The salary has been there for the last two years. I made the suggestion that it should be included a couple of years ago, hoping someone other than myself would get it; it will be there when a new minister is appointed.


Mr. FULTON:: With due respect to what the right hon. Prime Minister has said I might point out one further matter. That is, while I appreciate his statement, it is normal in an act setting up a department to provide for the appointment of a minister who shall preside over that department; and as the act would now stand no such provision is made. So that I would ask, for instance, under what authority would the Secretary of State for External Affairs be appointed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The act says:
There shall be .a department of the government of Canada to be called the Department of External Affairs, over which the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall preside.
I am afraid I do not quite catch my hon. friend's objection. Does he feel that this is not enough?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a matter of statutory form, if you wish. I am merely pointing out that the clause says, "over which the secretary of state shall preside," but still we have no provision for the appointment of a Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is normal to provide that the minister shall be appointed under the great seal, and shall hold office, and so on, and I merely point out that there is this exception. It is a small matter, but we have asked if the Prime Minister would be willing to introduce an amendment. I should think that in order to bring this act into conformity with other acts setting up departments he might well consent to that request.
External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I might have gone meticulously into this matter were it not that the act respecting the Department of External Affairs needs very considerable overhauling, and I should hope that would be one of the first steps to be taken once there is a separation of the two departments. The officers of the Department of External Affairs have drawn my attention to the fact that they feel it would be preferable to wait until we revised the entire act rather than attempt to make any unnecessary changes at this time.
I drafted a section after the hon. member for Peel spoke. I do not know whether this might meet the situation. It is that section 2, which I have just read, be amended by the insertion of the words "a minister of the crown to be known as" after the words "over which" in line 3, and the words "and hereafter referred to as the minister" after the words "external affairs" in line 3. The section would then read:
There shall be a department of the government of Canada to be called the Department of External Affairs, over which a minister of the crown .to be known as the Secretary of State for External Affaire and hereafter referred to as "the minister" shall preside.
If that is acceptable to my hon. friends opposite I would be happy to have it moved.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If the Prime Minister still occupies the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs there will be no extra expense. If a new minister is appointed the only extra expense will be his salary?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no; there will be much more extra expense. As I have said, the minute the office of Prime Minister is separated from the office of external affairs, there will have to be an enlargement to a considerable extent of the machinery in that office. For example, to-day there is no accounting branch in the office of the Prime Minister; all that is done in the Department of External Affairs. There is no provision for a staff for the Prime Minister. The staff of the Prime Minister for the most part are members of the Department of External Affairs who are seconded to the Prime Minister's office. There are other changes which do not come to mind at the moment but which are far-reaching. If there had been time to work out that division quickly within the last few months I would have been only too happy to do so, but I think it will take some short time to have it properly worked out.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I asked that question
because some of us are asking for a reduction in the income tax on salaries of married folk

and an exemption of $2,000. If we are putting it on one way and trying to take it off another it does not seem logical.


Gordon Graydon: In connection with the proposed amendment may I say to the Prime Minister that it does not quite meet what we had ini mind. It is perhaps not as strong as we should like to have it, but it does meet the point in that it does provide for a minister of the crown. Second, it does make a reference to the minister, and is applicable to the remaining parts of the sections, which is, I think, rather difficult from the draftsman's point of view.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I beg leave to move that
Section 2 of the Department of- External Affairs Act shall be amended by the insertion of the words "a minister of the crown to be known as" after the words "over which" in line 3 and the words "and hereafter referred to as the minister" after the words "external affairs" in line 3.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time .and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens.
He said: Since I propose to make a fairly extended1 statement may I now ask the indulgence of the house to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacNicol for the second reading of bill No. 2, respecting the Jack Miner National Wild Life Day.
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the second reading of bill No. 2, respecting Jack Miner national wild life day, has created an incident which is not only unusual but, I think, unique in the annals of this house. We are asked to commemorate the life of a citizen, and with it to identify him with his life's work.

National Wild Life Day
The speeches which have so far been heard are a worthy tribute to one who, in his lifetime, became known far and wide, and especially on this continent, for his great and valuable contribution to the knowledge of wild bird life. He began his life's work under circumstances very adverse, and sometimes under the sneering comment of his contemporaries which might have daunted a lesser man, but which only served to prove the indomitable spirit of this remarkable man.
It was given to few men, as it was given to Jack Miner, to receive in his lifetime the acclaim not only of those on this continent, but of those of many foreign lands. He exhibited the truth of that old and true saying, "Seest thou a man diligent in his business; he shall stand before kings."
Jack Miner in his life did stand among kings-kings of industry, political life and of every field of activity known to our civilization. But, above all, he stood a peer among his fellowmen-the common man. With it all he exhibited a robust Christianity which endeared him to those who believe in humanity and the eternal verities.
Full of years and his task showing promise of a prominence which his family are now endeavouring to consolidate, Jack Miner passed on, leaving his heritage to his immediate family, who are carrying on as he desired and as he would wish.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has told the house that there is a foundation called the Jack Miner foundation, which is carried on by the members of his family, and which is subject to the scrutiny of any who may wish to investigate. The hon. member for Davenport, because of his respect and admiration for Jack Miner, has brought this bill before the house. He was privileged to call Jack Miner his friend, and by this bill he has shown his desire to perpetuate that friendship and admiration in the form of the bill we are now discussing.
It is evident from the expressions from all sides of the house that the hon. member for Davenport has considerable support; and I am sure that as a recognition of the merits of Jack Miner, that support is universal on every side of the house. I should like to add that what I shall now say is not in opposition to or in any way to detract from the eminence of this great Canadian and great Christian gentleman. However, I should like the house to consider some angles of the bill which come to my mind.
The house will recall that last session I indicated, when my estimates were before the committee, and when the sum of $2,500 was being asked as a grant to the Jack Miner foundation, that I had received many letters
from hon. members on all sides of the house asking that the grant be restored to the amount at which it had formerly stood, namely $5,000. I stated at that time that when making up my estimates again I would endeavour to place the amount at $5,000, as before. I am now happy to say that I have been able to do so, and that hon. members will find in the estimates that the grant for the Jack Miner foundation is restored to its original sum of $5,000.
I am sure the house will agree that that estimate should pass, without discussion. Sometimes I think of the story of the old Quaker who was accosted by a friend who, in turn, was commiserating the condition of another friend. The old Quaker said, "Well, show us your sympathy", and he pulled out a pound note, saying, "There is the extent of my sympathy."
Perhaps the expression of the house in the grant of $5,000 is that form of expression which will be duly appreciated by those who will receive it. It may be that this bill, which is unusual _ and the first of its kind, would raise questions in the minds of hon. members as to the precedent about to be created. I do not know where we should stop, whether we should commemorate the life of any citizen in Canada in any field of activity. Shall we do so in the political field? If so, I can well understand that some hon. members might wish to commemorate the life of Sir John A. Macdonald, the father of Confederation, and whom, now that the partisan politics with which he was connected have passed away, we now view only as a great Canadian. If there were a suggestion to commemorate his life I am sure there are many Liberals on this side of the house who would recognize in Sir John A Macdonald not only a Conservative leader, but a leader of the Canadian people. I should imagine any suggestion of the kind I have mentioned would receive the acclaim of the country.
Then we might have a day set apart to commemorate the life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, because, as hon. members will recall, he came into office as Prime Minister at a time when unity within the country was very much needed. We had not passed far from colonial days and he was faced with a task which might have daunted any lesser man. I think any fair-minded Canadian will agree, however, that the efforts made by Sir Wilfrid Laurierj while he was Prime Minister of .this country, tended to consolidate the nation to a point where he could visualize a united Canada.
I am sure that Conservatives or others throughout the country would recognize his worth as they recognize the worth of Sir John A.
National Wild Lije Day

Macdonald. They were leaders of Canada, and it might be fitting, in some minds, to have a day commemorating their memory.
Then, while we are still in the political field, there is Sir Robert Borden. Sir Robert Borden did noble work during the last war, as every one will recognize. But in my judgment he did still greater work when he became one of the proponents of the Statute of Westminster which consolidated Canada as an autonomous nation. These men in the political field have passed away, and I can understand that in the days to come there may be a day set aside to commemorate their memory.
I would expect also that many would like to set a day aside to commemorate the present leader of the House of Commons and Prime Minister of Canada. I know the day will come when party strife has left the minds of men and they will look only to the great events and achievements of his life and recognize fully, as with these others that I have mentioned, that he is one of the leaders of Canada, one of the makers of Canada. It may be that in the days to come there may also be set apart a day for Mackenzie King.
Leaving the political field, I have in mind one outstanding citizen of this country who has also passed away, namely, Doctor Saunders, the man who brought into being Marquis wheat. I know of no greater contribution that any citizen of this country could make than that of Doctor Saunders who brought into being our Marquis wheat. That wheat revolutionized farming in western Canada; it gave stability to the economy of our country. Only recently there has been evolved another wheat with qualities even greater than wheats that preceded it and they all stemmed from that product which he evolved, namely, Marquis wheat. If one is to consider a field of endeavour such as that of Doctor Saunders, one covering the whole of Canada, one having an effect upon all our lives, then it should be proper that he also should have a day of commemoration set apart such as is now being asked for in this bill for Jack Miner.
I have another great Canadian in mind, Doctor Banting, that great physician who evolved insulin. The effects of insulin are not only national, they are international. He devoted his life to the work of evolving that great medicine. In the pursuance of his profession and in an effort to assist in the war effort he lost his life on the shores of Newfoundland. One might also say that a day should be set aside to commemorate Doctor Banting because he was a benefactor of all mankind and was a citizen of Canada.

Recently I had an invitation to address the prospectors' and developers' association in Toronto. About one thousand men and women were gathered together there. I was asked to give these prospectors and developers an address, but before doing so I met the president of the association, Mrs. Viola McMillan, and she asked me to speak about and further, if necessary, the setting up of a miners' day in Canada. I felt then as I feel now that an innovation of that kind should not come from me. I thought that while it was a proper thing to have a miners' day for Canada in order that the people of this country may have an opportunity to gather in all the information they can about the development of our land, that suggestion should not come from me. The world looks upon Canada as the last great mining field on this continent and these people feel that something should be done to propagate and to extend their activities.
I felt that it was not something that I could give official sanction to, however I might feel as an individual. However, they had decided already that they were going to have a miners' day. They proposed to take the initiative and do the spade work to bring it into being. They set up a fund and many of those present contributed. I was impressed by a most colorful character who was there, whom many hon. members know, Jack Hammil, who there and then gave his cheque for $500 to help carry on an educational programme among these prospectors and developers and also throughout the provinces. These people will lay the foundation whereby miners' day might become identified with that industry and create interest in it which would be of value to the industry.
I notice that the explanatory notes to the bill state:
The purpose of this bill is to create public interest in the wild life of Canada and educate Canadians in the value thereof by setting aside a day when school teachers can stress in schools bird life, humane education, conservation, a day to judge bird-house contests . . .
The word "education" is brought into this, and it struck me that this bill should not be brought before this House of Commons at this time. My feeling is that the timing is not good. If there is a desire throughout Canada to have such a day, then it seems to me there ought to be some preparatory work done before such a bill is presented here. After all, we represent the dominion; we do not represent the provinces as provinces. The matter of education is wholly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, and it might seem somewhat impertinent for the

National Wild Life Day
House of Commons to distinguish a day which would be related to the educational systems of the provinces when, indeed, they might be desirous of commemorating some of their own citizens. I would not be surprised if some of the provinces might desire that one or more of their eminent men should be commemorated in a form which this bill suggests.
At all events, my feeling is that this matter should not be brought before the House of Commons at this time. Communication should be entered into with the provinces to see what their viewpoint is. We are dealing with the provinces in the dominion-provincial conference, and it seems to me that we should not bring before them something which we propose to merge into their educational system and curricula without at least giving them an opportunity to say whether or not they desire it.
I did not wish to speak at any length upon this bill. I wish to make a suggestion to my hon. friend the member for Davenport, and I do so with some degree of timidity. He has proposed this bill with a desire to commemorate his friend and the friend of many in this house. During the discussion on this bill many hon. members have acclaimed the work of Jack Miner and of the foundation which now exists. I think the hon. member has done his duty, and he should now consider whether or not this is the proper time to bring a bill such as this before the house without some effort being made to find out the reaction of the provinces toward such a bill.
With the high regard that I have for the hon. member for Davenport I do not like to appear as being opposed to anything he may wish, but I would suggest to him that some communication should be had with the provinces and their points of view obtained. If, later on, the consensus is that the life of any citizen should be commemorated in this unique manner, then it might be brought before the house again. If the hon. member desires I shall be glad to assist him in obtaining expressions from the provinces of their points of View with regard to the bill.
I am hoping the hon. member will take this suggestion as a helpful one. I know he would wish to have, not only the acclaim of this House of Commons but the acclaim of all the provincial legislatures in Canada for the work done by Jack Miner. When that day comes, then he could again introduce a bill which would give effect to that desire.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to see the hon. member's bill killed by the minister in this way. I would suggest to the minister that duringthe recess this bill should go either to the committee on natural resources, mines and all that or be considered by the select committee considering Indian affairs, or taken up in the recess with the provinces and municipalities.
There is a principle to consider in connection with this bill. Our countryside is perhaps one of the most beautiful in the world, and yet I have heard many tourists complain of its reckless destruction, and anything which the government can do to prevent this destruction will help to preserve a natural asset for years to come. Our roads are also another great asset, although it is true that more people have been killed on the great roads, at level crossings and elsewhere, than were killed in the great war. Roads help to open up a country. The great lake Muskoka district is a beautiful one; yet it, like others, is being wiped out by the wilful destruction of the countryside. Nothing has contributed more to the education of the people than the motor car.
There is some merit to this bill which is sponsored by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who always adds a great deal of light to any discussion in which he takes part.
The Hamilton-Dundas highway runs through one of the most beautiful market-garden districts in Ontario; yet I never saw such destruction of the countryside, the wild flowers, the birds, in my life, and many visiting people have expressed the same view. I hope that the minister will consider these suggestions and that during the recess some of the officials will take up this question with the provinces and municipalities and get some action.
We remember Cowper in "The Task" when he speaks of the beauty of the old English countryside and says:
I *would not enter on my list of friends
(Though graced with polish'd manners and fine sense.
Yet wanting sensibility), the man
Who needlessly sets foot upon a worm.
And again he attacks the pleasures of the chase:
Detested sport that feeds on another's pain.
He describes the need of care of the countryside and the bird life of England.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his remarks and for his suggestion that I withdraw the bill now and allow the government to confer with the provinces in connection with the matter he mentioned, namely, the educational matter, and then I can reintroduce a similar bill next year. I do not know
National Wild Life Day

why I should refuse to accept his suggestion, but before doing so I should like to express my warm appreciation of the addresses of all hon. members who have spoken in favour of the bill. All of them have been unanimously in favour of it, including the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and in particular perhaps, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradetfe), and I know that had the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) been here before the minister spoke, he, too, would have supported the bill. I quite realize that after the minister has spoken the government supporters have to take back what they said and support the minister. I do not blame them for that because it is likely that I would do so myself if I were over there. In order to have government in this country it is the duty of party followers to be loyal, and I have never objected to that.
I am sure that what has been said in this debate will be helpful to the foundation. I am concerned that Canada recognize the great achievement of the late Jack Miner. The minister has mentioned a number of other distinguished naturalists and all that he has said of them is true. But their achievements were quite different from those of Jack Miner in this regard, that his life was associated with the service he performed through children, and the main purpose of a bill such as this would be to educate the children. I am sure that teachers would welcome an hour or more on a Friday afternoon to teach children the importance of conservation of wild life. The bill was never intended to establish a holiday or anything like that but was patterned after the bills in the United States where many states have wild life day, and there is also a national wild life day. But no other country has had such a character as the late Jack Miner to hang a bill on, so to speak. What other conservationist did work at all comparable with that done by Jack Miner? None that I know of, though all the men mentioned by the minister were great men.
I do not think I need say any more. I shall withdraw the bill and next year reintroduce another bill on the understanding, as the minister indicated, that in the meantime the government will inquire from the provinces if they have any objection. I do not see

why they should have. I am sure they would welcome his inquiries. I cannot conceive of any province not desiring to teach children to conserve wild life. Think of all the insectivorous birds and what a wonderful job they do for Canada and any other country, but how many children know their names or indeed anything about them? Not many. I remember, as a boy going to school, reading a poem by the late Lord Tennyson, the first verse of which ran something like this:
I come from haunts of coot and hern,
I make a sudden sally,
And sparkle out among the fern,
To bicker down a valley.
I remember that as a child one of the first things I wanted to know was, what was a hem? There are two spellings for it, "hern" and "heron"; the poet uses "hern", which may be poetic licence. I wanted to know what a heron was and what a coot was. This kind of thing is educational. I cannot conceive of any educational body not being intensely interested in the opportunity to allow children to be instructed in wild life conservation, to know something about waterfowl, to understand the habits of geese and ducks. It is an interesting study and should be welcomed by boards of education. In the United States the national wild life association of Washington sends out large quantities of literature which are very popular with boards of education throughout the country.
As I said the other day, the Jack Miner foundation is one in which this country will have a part after the present members of the family pass on, because new managers are to be named by the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of the United States, and the treasurer of the foundation. So that we are part of it. The foundation had planned, if the bill had passed, to follow the plan of the national wild life association in the United States. That is all to the good. It would be better here if our national wild life association were not a government association. I do not believe that a government could do as well as the wild life association does in the United States or as the foundation could do here, because of the intense interest of those associated with it to make it a great success and to inculcate the principles of conservation in the minds of youth. I have had letters from various bodies, including sportsmen's and tourists' associations wanting to cooperate. That is all to the good.
However, there is not much use in my prolonging the matter any further at the moment.
I accept the minister's undertaking to consult

Railway Act
the provinces, and I withdraw the bill. I hope next year it will receive the unanimous support of the house.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the
house that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) shall have leave to withdraw his bill?
Bill withdrawn.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel) moved the second reading of bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the consent and the direction of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) to proceed with the motion for the second reading of bill No. 3, and I desire at this time to make some observations relative to the legislation proposed. I do so with some pleasure because it is a matter to which both the hon. member for York West and myself have during the past year given close study and careful attention. His constituency and mine adjoin, and in so far as the train whistling problem is concerned which is involved in this amendment to the Railway Act, both of us find our constituents in the same unfortunate and embarrassing dilemma. I should like in the unavoidable absence of the hon. member for York West to pay tribute to the industrious way in which he has pursued the matter in the interests of his constituents, and which has reflected upon my constituents in a very favourable way as well.
The question involved is an amendment to the Railway Act. The notes on the bill itself are, of course, partly explanatory of the purposes and intent and purport of the bill. Roughly speaking, larger places-cities, for instance, and towns-have the right, where railways pass through their midst, to pass a by-law prohibiting the blowing of train whistles within the boundary limits of those municipalities. So far so good. The difficulty which now is arising in many suburban parts is that these suburbs have grown up and their population has increased so that, while they may still only qualify as townships and villages, the frequency of train whistling, with the ever-increasing population, has presented an embarrassing nuisance problem to the residents. I know best, perhaps, the problem of the Lake Shore area between Toronto and Hamilton, because part of that area is in the constituency of Peel which I have the honour to represent. Take, for instance, the township
of Etobicoke, very close to the city of Toronto; the township of York, the village of Long Branch, the township of Toronto and the village of Port Credit, and so on. All along that line of railway are found to-day heavily populated areas, and still some of those municipalities have not the right under the Railway Act to regulate the whistling nuisance which is caused by the tremendous number of trains going to and fro each day.
I take the liberty of detaining the house for a moment to indicate the extent of the problem and how serious it is to the residents. A man named George S. Warner, of the township of Etobicoke, in the constituency represented by the hon. member for York West, took the trouble last fall, by staying awake until the early hours of the morning and making a survey, to ascertain the extent of the nuisance. I shall not go over all the details which appear in a report over his signature, but he speaks of one situation near his own home. He says:
There are six level crossings in my area in less than one mile in a closely congested area of approximately 9,000 people. From 7 in the evening until 7 in the morning thirty trains blow four shrieking blasts for each crossing.
Or, as he refers to it, a "terrible total of 700 sleep-disturbing whistles every night." In connection with that, the medical officer of health for that township and the principal of the large collegiate there, as well as many others who are interested in the matter, have asked the hon. member for York West to bring this matter to the attention of the house. One of the newspapers in my own riding, the Port Credit Weekly, conducted a campaign last fall against the whistling nuisance in the Port Credit area. I have here on my desk only a few of the many hundreds of ballots or coupons which were sent to me, indicating that no small amount of interest has been taken in this problem in that area.
The hon. member for York West and I went to the board of transport commissioners for some relief from our problem. Last fall I received from the board a long report indicating that many people in my constituency had been interviewed and the problem had been gone into very fully, but there seemed to be what on the farm we used to speak of as a nigger in the woodpile, and in this legislation we are trying to get the nigger out of the woodpile; that is the purpose of the amendment. I think the need of this amendment will become apparent when I read a paragraph of the report of the board of transport commissioners. This is what the secretary of that board said in a letter to me:
Railway Act
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. K. Rogers, assistant superintendent, Canadian National Railways, stated that train movements per twenty-four hours were as high as 134. On a basis of four blasts for each crossing, of which there are two in the village of Port Credit, this would total 1,072 per day or 53 per hour.
He goes on to say that on two particular days the train movements totalled 91 and 96, but these were admittedly light days. Then this is the point I wish to bring particularly [DOT] to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). The report from the secretary of the board goes on:
It must appear fairly obvious from the above, that the complaints on file are well founded. It was pointed out to them that theirs was a problem that would be difficult to solve, inasmuch as the railways were but carrying out the requirements of the law, which law makes no provision for a township or a village taking advantage of section- 308 of the Railway Act.
So that both the hon. member for York West and myself, in following this avenue of approach in an attempt to solve this problem, found ourselves up against a stone wall in the act as it stands at present, particularly section 308. At this point, if I may,
I should like to indicate to the minister just what section 308 of the Railway Act actually says. This is the section, without any proposed amendment:
When any train is approaching a highway crossing at rail level the engine whistle shall be sounded at least eighty rods before reaching such crossing, and the hell shall be rung continuously from the time of the sounding of the whistle -until the engine has crossed such highway.
2. Where -a municipal by-law-
This is the further point involved.
-of a city or town prohibits such sounding of the whistle or such ringing of the bell in respect of any such crossing or crossings within the limits of such city or town, such by-law shall, if approved by an order of the board, to the extent of such prohibition relieve -the company and its employees from the duty imposed by this section.
Therefore the purport and intent of the amendment moved by the hon. member for York West is to enlarge the jurisdiction and power of municipalities which do not qualify as either cities or towns but are known as villages or townships, with large populations in suburban areas, or close by or contiguous to large centres of population, giving them the same privilege and power given to a town or city to pass a by-law in the hope that upon submission to the board of transport commissioners it may receive approval and result in having the train whistling abated.
I do not wish to go on too long with this matter, because it seems to me this is a very simple, yet a very important and urgent

sort of amendment. But I should like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that what is suggested in this legislation must, I think, be regarded as a move toward the abatement of this nuisance within the limits of public safety. And public safety is paramount. I think that must be said, because, after all, the railways to-day, no matter how much they may cooperate in an attempt to abate the nuisance on their own, by virtue of this section of the Railway Act still find that if they do not blow the whistle or ring the bell they may be in a serious position in case of accident.
I should like to deal with one further point before I sit down. Of course I believe this bill goes a long way toward solving an important problem; but in these congested areas I think the time is coming and in many instances has already arrived when the whole question of grade separation must be dealt with intelligently and effectively. I know that in some of the very instances cited the ultimate solution of the problem may well be grade seiparation. So that I would suggest to the minister that when this bill is given second reading and sent to the aprop-riate committee, some consideration might be given to some changes in the phraseology of the bill itself so that it will not be restricted in its scope only to municipalities which immediately adjoin large cities or populated areas which at present have power to pass by-laws of the kind to which I have just referred. I am anxious that this important point be considered by the committee.
I hope I may have an opportunity to appear before that committee, even though I m-ay not be a member of it, because I should like to see the township of Toronto and the village of Port Credit, in which I am particularly interested,, given an opportunity of coming within any amended legislation. Therefore I hope that will be made clear in the bill when it finally emerges from the committee stage.
I ask for the support and sympathy of the house in connection with this power which, it seems to me, should be given to municipalities which find themselves in such an embarrassing and awkward position as I have just outlined. I also commend this amendment to the Minister of Transport, whose courtesy is so well known in matters of this kind and who, as time goes on, I am quite sure will feel as I do with respect to the merits of the bill.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Does not
the hon. member think everything would be solved if we adopted the rule they have in

Railway Act
the United States? They eliminate whistling altogether, but they have a rule which says, "Stop, look and listen," rather than "Look and listen" as we have it in Canada. Then we would save thousands of lives every year; then your little children could sleep with their heads pillowed on their hands, and all that sort of thing.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, it is not only in the townships that this nuisance of whistles and bells has been created; it applies equally in the cities and towns. As far as I can see, the only solution of this problem is the electrification of all railways in the Toronto district within a radius of thirty miles of the city. Surely that could be done, w-ith the large amounts the two railway companies are receiving to-day. After all, the Canadian National made most of its money in the province of Ontario, and I think the time has come when the steam railways should do something about the electrification of their systems in the vicinity of Toronto, as they have done in the Montreal area.
The Railway Act provides for equality of treatment. I support the principle of the bill because I know something about it. Under section 275 of the Railway Act the board of transport commissioners is required of its own volition to go out and see these things. As the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said about another department, they should not be just a commission sitting in swivel chairs. They are supposed to go out into the highways and byways and see what is going on and carry on an inspection.
There have been a large number of complaints along the lake-shore road and the Dundas highway and in other parts of the constituency of York West. I remember the time when the city of Toronto bought up all the light, power and electric railway franchises in the two counties of York and Ontario in order to transport the people by cheap fares.
Another section of the Railway Act which has to do with commutation tickets has been violated. Oakville and Brampton have them. That section has not been carried out. In my opinion the board of railway commissioners are empowered to act. They hear applications with regard to these whistle matters, and they do not do anything about it. The board of railway commissioners does not function in the way it should and in the way it did when the late Mr. Justice Mabee was appointed chairman of the commission. As I see it, something has to be done about the electrification of railways in the Toronto district.
Take the Don valley in the constituency which I represent and also in that of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman). When I first bought a house in North Rosedale and lived there for eighteen years the ringing of bells, the sounding of whistles and the shunting all day and night were something that one could hardly imagine. I never heard anything like it in my life. It went on all night long. Complaints were made to the railway commission and applications were made by the township and city, but nothing was done about the matter. The only solution of this problem that I see is for the board of railway commissioners to act on its own volition. It has the power under the Railway Act. Why do they have to wait for an application to be made by a private citizen or a municipality? They have certain functions to perform. In New York state they are compelled to act. If our board of railway commissioners fulfilled their functions we would not have matters like this coming before the house. The Canadian National Railways should do something about the Toronto district. They have plenty of money to build a tunnel in Montreal costing S25 million. Surely they could afford to electrify their system and use the new diesel type of engines they have. There is no reason why something should not be done. I urge that this bill be passed because there is a great deal of force in it.
I call the attention of the house to the last three lines in the bill. I remember an accident a few years ago which happened on the Brown's line, I think it was, near the home of Monsignor O'Leary on Brown's line below Dundas street. In that accident three or four schoolteachers were crossing a railway crossing in a car. There was a good view for half a mile, nothing but farm lands around. The whistle was blowing, but they did not see the train and three or four people lost their lives. The house will note that the last three lines of this bill relieve the company from any liability or penalty under the section in case of an accident. Therefore an individual will have no action for damages if a person is killed on a level crossing in this district. If that should happen the railway company can plead not guilty by statute. If a person were injured he would have no action for damages in a civil court. Let us not, when we are considering this bill, forget the huge loss of life that takes place at these level crossings in Canada.


Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: The only changes I can see in this railway bill is that it gives the townships and villages the same rights as a city or town to pass a by-law

Canadian Citizenship

with respect to whistling and ringing of railway bells in their communities. In the town in which I live two main lines, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, run through it. On these two main lines seventy trains travel up and down every day, and there are five level crossings in the town. There are no automatic signals on at any of these crossings. We are in this position. If we appeal to the board of railways commissioners to have the whistling stopped and it is granted and there is a fatal accident the town council is blamed for passing such a by-law. In the town of Port Hope there is a hospital a short distance from these two tracks and the Trinity college school, which is a boarding school. Both institutions are greatly disturbed. I have had several letters from residents of this town asking that something be done to have the blowing of the whistles stopped in the town. If the town passes a by-law to stop the whistling and someone is killed the council is blamed. If we do not do this, then we have to put up with the whistling nuisance. Therefore we are between the devil and the deep blue sea.
In the last few years we have had nine deaths at these crossings. Although I am in favour of having the nuisance done away with by applying to the board of transport commissioners, yet I feel the government should take steps to instal automatic signals on every level crossing in the country. I understand that this can be done by applying to the board. But the municipality must stand the greater part of the cost of installing these signals. As the house knows, the only income available to the municipalities is the tax they levy on small properties and the dog tax, yet they are asked to bear the greater cost of installing these signals. The nuisance is so great that one man said to me, with seventy trains passing through this town every night, whistling and blowing four times each, by the time he jumped out of bed seventy times and back in again, it got on his nerves to such an extent that he did not get any sleep. If the installation of a signal will save a human life, surely it should be done. I ask the government to consider bearing a greater share of the cost of installing these automatic signals, and that they be installed on every level crossing in the country.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


Paul Joseph James Martin: In moving second reading of this bill may I state at the outset I believe this measure parallels the development of Canada as a
TMr. Stephenson.]
nation. The bill arises from the fact of pride, common pride, in the achievements of our country, based upon the great exploits of our people. I would suggest that it symbolizes our aspirations as a nation for the future. When I spoke to the house on first reading last October I concluded with these words- and I beg the indulgence of the house to repeat them to-night:
For the national unity of Canada and for the future and greatness of this country it is felt to be of the utmost importance that all of us, new Canadians or old, have a consciousness of a common purpose and common interests as Canadians; that all of us be able to say with pride and say with meaning:	"I iam a Canadian
citizen."
That, sir, in a general way, sets out the main objective of the bill. But the bill seeks to do more than that. As I shall endeavour to show, it seeks to avoid many complexities and confusions which arise from existing legislation. For some time now, indeed for many years, it has been felt in the country and in the house that the time has arrived when ambiguities arising out of the Naturalization Act- both the act before 1914, and the one of 1914-the Canadian Nationals Act, and the Immigration Act, should be treated in such a way as to provide an unambiguous definition of the status of Canadian citizenship.
It may be of interest to note that in 1931 the then Secretary of State, the Hon. C. H. Cahan, felt exactly as I do with regard to the necessity of removing the anomalies in existing legislation. He felt, as I feel, that the time had come when Canada, having matured into full nationhood, should give her people the right of being able to designate themselves Canadian citizens. In these words he expressed his views:
I think we have reached the stage in the policy of our national life that we should seriously consider the foundations for its future development. For sixty-four years we have had a very satisfactory material development. We have been promoting great national works, grafting out new provinces, providing organized governments for the great Northwest Territories and I think we have succeeded far beyond the expectations of the fathers of confederation in the material and commercial development of Canada. In connection with that development, however, if we are to assume the status of a nation within the British commonwealth, we must also assume very serious duties and responsibilities. Among the responsibilities resting upon the (parliament of Canada is that of framing a clear definition of "Canadian nationals" for whom the government and parliament are responsible, whether they are resident in the dominion or temporarily resident outside of our territorial jurisdiction. So long as they retain the status of Canadian national, they should, in my opinion, be treated as such and as holding a Btatus within the dominion equal to that which any others individually enjoy.

C anadian Citizenship
That was the view of a diligent secretary of state, who sought to put before the parliament of that day, not in the details of the present bill, but following its main principle, the measure to which I am now asking the house to give second reading. That bill was proceeded with to the stage of second reading, but for some reason or another not made fully known at the time, the then secretary of state advised the house that he was not proceeding with the bill. But that his convictions had not been disturbed, in spite of the decision not to proceed, is noted in the observations he made later in this house in 1937, when he used these words:
I repeat that sometimes I fear we have more of the colonial spirit of inferiority than even our fathers and grandfathers had and certainly the time has come in the history of this dominion when, if we seek to ascertain who are Canadians and who are Canadian nationals, we should be able to find it in some substantive enactment outside of the Immigration Act, the real purpose and intent of which is to exclude certain classes of people from obtaining domicile in Canada. Why we should be compelled to look to that act for a definition of who are Canadians, who are Canadian nationals, I cannot understand. I think it is a discreditable condition in which we find ourselves to-day.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say it is a discreditable position in which we find ourselves as a nation among the nations of the world to-day not to be able clearly to address one another with the full sanction of the law and for all purposes as citizens of our own country.
Under this bill we are seeking to establish clearly a basic and definite Canadian citizenship which will be the fundamental status upon which the rights and privileges of Canadians will depend. We hope at the same time to remove a great many anomalies and difficulties which exist under present legislation, as I have noted, and which have not only been irksome and troublesome to the country and its people, but occasioned real hardship to persons who have had the misfortune to be caught in them.
Under the present Canadian Nationals Act, which was passed in 1921, on introduction by the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty, the purpose was to meet certain commitments this country had made as a member of the league of nations, and also to permit our taking advantage of possible nomination to membership in the International Court of Justice. That was the only purpose-the very limited purpose of the Canadian Nationals Act-so that we could say, for the purposes of that act, having in mind its immediate objective, that there was such a thing as a Canadian national.
But the definition of Canadian citizenship in that act was a definition by reference. The only unrelated and existing definition of Canadian citizenship is to be found in the Immigration Act. The Canadian Nationals Act defines a Canadian citizen as one who comes within the meaning of the definition of the Immigration Act.
There are few countries in the world who define their citizenship within the clauses of an immigration act. Even the definition within the Immigration Act is a limited one. It is a definition of citizenship only for the purposes of that act, namely for the purposes of immigration.
The Naturalization Act, passed in this house in 1914, which sought to provide for the application of extra-territorial powers to give to naturalized British subjects in Canada the right to have that designation not only in Canada but throughout the world, followed earlier acts which came into being shortly after 1867. But because of the difficulties, the great injustices, the natural pride and urge of every Canadian, the time has come, and I think unmistakenly, if I can judge by reactions of public opinion throughout this country since the introduction of the bill, when not only those on whose shoulders rested the primary responsibility of representing Canada on the fields of battle during the late war, but all Canadians generally, proud of their country, have reached the stage where, in the form of a legal enactment, they want an undoubted right to be able to call themselves Canadian citizens, the right to be able to say when they cross the border that they are citizens of Canada, the right to be given a passport on which the words "Canadian citizen" will appear. They want the right, in other words, which is recognized by every country, and every government in every country with respect to its own people.
I would point out that under the present legislation, the three acts I have mentioned, the wife of a Canadian citizen, or a person born out of Canada whose father was a Canadian national at the time of his birth, would be entitled to receive a Canadian passport, even if it was perfectly clear that the applicant did not possess Canadian citizenship under the Immigration Act. There is also the problem of the prohibited immigrant to Canada.
The curious picture is thus presented of a person who cannot enter Canada under the Immigration Act being entitled to receive a Canadian passport which requests assistance and protection for him in foreign countries. This is but one of many like instances that could be recited of the confusion which now exists and which by this bill we have made an honest and complete attempt to remedy.
Canadian Citizenship

Generally speaking, by this bill we are seeking to make the status of Canadian citizenship the paramount national status of *persons who are Canadians. I find in the administration of my department considerable difficulty in connection with administering certain acts such as the Copyright Act and the Patent Act, largely because of the indefiniteness and, in many instances, the absolute lack of a legal basis for determining nationality, or citizenship as I prefer to call it.
Further, in other departments of government there is great difficulty of administration in connection with matters arising out of the treaty of Versailles and out of the early reparations treaty. I suspect that if this bill is not made law we shall have difficulty in dealing with some subsequent reparations agreement that will arise as a result of the war from which we have just emerged.
Considering the question of convenience and the recognition of our status as a growing nation, I submit that I need not labour the great need, urgency and desirability of having this measure passed. As I said, other departments of government are interested in the matter. For instance, the Department of External Affairs has a vital interest in the determination of status because it is concerned with the issuing of passports and with the diplomatic protection of Canadians and Canadian interests abroad. I am told that this is made exceedingly difficult by reason of the lack of any national status test. Neither the Canadian Nationals Act nor the Naturalization Act nor the Immigration Act afford any satisfactory way out as far as this matter is concerned.
Then, again, that department is concerned with the maintenance of understandings which exist with other members of the British commonwealth concerning nationality questions and with general international problems and arrangements concerning the protection of Canadians and Canadian interests in enemy and enemy occupied countries. The present legislation does not furnish any adequate test of personal status for this purpose. That department is also concerned with the definition and position of Canadians and Canadian interests in treaty negotiations; with the problems of deportation, both coming and going; with the problems that arise out of naturalization and the requirements of the revocation of naturalization certificates; with the need of establishment by proper legislation of a status which would determine the right of a person to regard himself as a Cana-

dian and of documentary evidence which would enable an individual to claim such a position.
This measure in its present form will meet the difficulties I have enumerated in the case of the Department of External Affairs, as well as meet some of the problems that I have mentioned in the administration of the Department of the Secretary of State. When the bill is passed it will mean that a Canadian citizen will be entitled as a Canadian citizen to receive a Canadian passport, to enter Canada, to be deported to Canada under circumstances in which deportation is required under existing principles of international law, to receive diplomatic protection, to enjoy full political and economic rights within- Canada and to own a Canadian ship or part of a ship.
Hon. members may find it rather unusual that these six enumerated benefits, among others, will follow from the passage of this bill. The fact is that there are constant administrative difficulties with regard to these six minimum requirements of nationality in the department of immigration, the Department of External Affairs and the Department of the Secretary of State.	[DOT]
The measure before the house is not without its complications. I may say frankly that the bill in its present form represents a great deal of effort and study on the part of the officials of four departments of government, the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Justice, the Department of Immigration and the Department of the Secretary of State.
My colleague, the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), authorizes me to say that when this measure becomes law it will be followed by an amendment to the Immigration Act which will remove from section 2 of that act the only real definition, although for a limited purpose, of Canadian citizenship that is to be found. As I said at the outset, it will be remembered that the definition of a Canadian national in the Canadian Nationals Act is a definition by reference.
This measure is one that has behind it no political purpose. I think it is one that will commend itself to the consideration of all hon. members. When we come to the committee stage I shall welcome any suggestions which may be made to improve the draftsmanship, if that be found possible, or even the content of the bill in order to make the measure as nearly efficient as it is humanly possible to make it.
One thing we hope-to do, following the passage of this measure, is to provide a more effective and impressive ceremony of admis-

Canadian Citizenship
sion into the Canadian family. Our citizenship is made up not only of people bom in this country and of people who acquired domicile as British subjects under the Immigration Act, but of many thousands of new Canadians living in all parts of our country who have come from other lands and who have made a notable contribution to the development of Canada. There are people who came from many parts of central Europe and who are now living and working as Canadians on our farms and in our factories. Many of those people came here without being able to speak the two languages of the country and without being accustomed to its traditions. Most of them have rendered notable service to Canada. We should not lose the opportunity of impressing ourselves and reminding them that just as we are glad to welcome them to our shores, now that they are here they should enjoy with us the full measure of partnership in the Canadian community.
There will be others who will come after this bill has passed and who in the years ahead will add to our numbers and share our traditions and aspirations. Many hon. members have expressed themselves on this subject, notably the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). We are convinced of the desirability of emulating the form of ceremony which characterizes the admission of persons into United States citizenship. An attempt is made to impress upon potential United States citizens the nature of the undertaking as well as to indicate the opportunities and the privileges and the responsibilities of a United States citizen.
It may be that in Canada for some reason or another ceremonies of admission here and there in the country have been a little more perfunctory than we would have liked to have them, and it is our determination under the statutory provisions of this bill to frame regulations that will make these ceremonies more than an ordinary procedure, and one of a memorable character.
Many hon. members belong to service clubs, and the ritual of attendance and admission into these clubs oftentimes is so impressive as to place in the candidate's mind an indelible iippression of the nature of the obligation assumed. But there is no finer club in the world so far as we are concerned than the club that I would characterize as the Canadian family. We should want, therefore, to impress upon new Canadians whom we shall welcome and want to share in our national endeavours that they are joining no mean society but a society that will give them
freedom and an opportunity perhaps that they have not. had in other lands, and at the same time to point out to them the nature of the obligation undertaken and tell them something of the kind of country and the kind of general political basis of the Canadian society itself.
I have endeavoured since becoming Secretary of State to perfect the machinery of these ceremonies to the extent that time and the law allow-ed. I have gone myself to a number of these ceremonies. I went a few months ago to the city of Toronto, where perhaps these ceremonies are performed in as fitting a manner as one will find in any part of the country. There His Honour Judge Parker, the senior county court judge, who for a number of years has taken a great interest in these matters, has had ceremonies which I know have made a- deep impression upon every new Canadian who has obtained Canadian naturalization in that city and through the avenue of that particular judge. I have gone to these ceremonies and to others, not because my personal presence is of any account but because as minister of the crown, speaking in the name of the government and the people of Canada, I have found it useful to invite and to welcome these new Canadians to our national family. I believe that if we pursue this approach to the matter -we shall do a great deal to make these new Canadians more valuable citizens who will the more readily appreciate the great opportunity which under our law we hope we shall be able to give them.
I wish to pay a tribute to-night to such organizations as the Daughters of the Empire, to Canadian and service clubs, to Mr. Justice Dysart of Winnipeg, to His Honour Judge Gordon of Windsor, men and .organizations who have in a very special manner contributed greatly to the kind of work which I think will be found to be a very valuable ancillary feature to the bill now before the house.
In the new Citizenship 'branch, which has been transferred to the Secretary of State from the Minister of National War Services, an opportunity is given of dealing effectively and more fully not only with foreign language newspapers but with new Canadian groups. We hope to be able to use, as I shall show when we come to a detailed discussion of the bill, this new Citizenship branch as a means of furthering the kind of suggestions which were made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and others when speaking in this house two or three years ago.
The bill is not in its essence a difficult one. even though some of the clauses may require more than ordinary attention. It will be of
Canadian Citizenship

assistance to non. members to note that out of the 47 sections of the bill 18 are virtually reenactments of existing sections and 17 are new. What we are dealing with is really a comprehensive revision of the Naturalization Act done in such & way as to produce a status of Canadian citizenship that will be sufficiently inclusive to serve as a basic definition for immigration and for all general purposes and that will eliminate the need for subordinate definitions.
Hon. members will have observed from an examination of the bill that it is divided into seven parts, in addition to three preliminary sections and two concluding schedules. The three preliminary sections form what is really an interpretative portion containing the definitions necessary for the proper drafting of the substantive parts.
It has been a long-standing source of irritation to many Canadians to be told on occasion, in reply to a question as to their national status, that there is no such thing as a Canadian and that some other national status has to be declared. In this bill we now provide that so far as any questions coming within the competence of the Canadian government are concerned the answer "Canadian citizen" in reply to an inquiry as to national status shall be sufficient. So far as national status is concerned the description "Canadian citizen" will hereafter be sufficient.
Part I of the bill deals with natural-bom Canadian citizens. The first section of this part attempts to set forth that persons now in being are immediately to have the status of Canadian citizens as of right of birth. The people who will be natural-born Canadian citizens are of two classes, those who are born in Canada or on a Canadian ship, and those who were born to Canadian parents outside Canada before the passing of the act, except of .course for such of these persons as may have become aliens before the act comes into effect. There are refinements in the bill, but on a broad generalization those are the categories of people now in being who will be natural-born Canadian citizens immediately.
The second thing done in part I is to define what persons born after the act comes into force shall be natural-born Canadian citizens. In general, the provisions here for persons born before the act are similar to those to which I have referred and do not differ greatly from the definitions of a natural-born British subject that are now contained in the Naturalization Act. The principal difference is this, that in future all Canadian children bom abroad will have to be registered within two years either at a diplomatic, consular or trade commissioner's office or in Ottawa. Hitherto
TMr. Martin.]
registrations have not been necessary in all cases of children born abroad who have acquired the status provided for in existing legislation. There is, I believe, good reason for this. There is a slightly greater strictness in the new bill. Hereafter Canadian children bom abroad will as Canadian citizens have the right of entry into Canada. They have never had this before. In giving this important right it is felt necessary to have some record and some form of evidence that will serve for immigration purposes. Children born in Canada 'will in all cases have birth certificates. In a parallel manner we are requiring the registration of children born abroad, in order that there may be a basic record to establish their rights as Canadian citizens.
Apart from registration there is nothing that is essentially new or different in part 1. The relevant provisions concerning foundlings and children born after the death of their father fill in gaps that exist in existing legislation.
Part II of the bill deals with the second broad division of Canadian citizens, those who were not bom to citizenship but acquire it at a later stage. There are two cases to provide for: the people who are to be Canadian citizens at once because of action taken before the passage of this act; and those who may become Canadian citizens hereafter. Provision is made to cover persons other than natural-born Canadian citizens who are to be Canadian citizens immediately upon the coming into force of the act. This section I will frankly state has been a particularly difficult one to draft. It was revised repeatedly in successive drafts of the bill. The present section is somewhat altered from the form in which it was presented in the bill introduced in this house last October by way of first reading. I think the section now says what we wanted it to say. The broad intention is to provide that the people who have been naturalized in Canada hitherto, non-Canadian British subjects who have resided in Canada for five years or more, and non-Canadian women who married Canadians and have come to live in Canada, shall become Canadian citizens immediately. This matter has been thought over and discussed carefully, and I think the definitions will cover all those who should be Canadian citizens at once, and no others.
The second portion of part II provides for future acquisition of Canadian citizenship through naturalization. The qualifications for future naturalization are almost exactly the same as those now in force, except that only

Canadian Citizenship,
one year of residence, rather than five, will be required of persons who served out of Canada in our armed forces during time of war. Actually, because the time that a man has served in the armed forces of Canada is to be taken as a period of residence in Canada, this will mean that men in the armed forces will in fact not have to spend any prior time in Canada before being admitted into Canadian citizenship, on the theory that if a man is prepared to fight for this country there should be no hesitation in granting him what we can grant by way of labelling him a citizen of this country.
Although it is not set forth in the Naturalization Act, but only in the regulations, we have since 1943, required "a declaration of intention" to become naturalized to be made before actual naturalization is applied for. This declaration has to be made at least one year and not more than five years before naturalization takes place. As the house will recall, essentially the same requirement is made in the United States. In future, under the bill now before the house, such declaration will be necessary for aliens who wish to become naturalized in Canada, but not for the wives or husbands of Canadians or from nonCanadian British subjects. With regard to the other naturalization requirements, a certain relaxation is provided in that twenty years' residence may substitute for a knowledge of French or English.
I will frankly say to the house at this stage why that provision was put in there. It came to my attention not very long ago that a man who had lived in this country, in the province of Saskatchewan, for thirty-two years had for reasons best known to himself not been able to acquire the slightest kind of proficiency in either of the two official languages of this country, and under the act the judge was precluded from granting him the right to receive a certificate of naturalization. It later developed that this particular person had sent two sons to fight in the armed forces of Canada; one of these sons had won the Distinguished Flying Cross and the other gave his life for Canada. I felt, and I hope the house will agree with me, that that kind of person is entitled to Canadian citizenship. This provision will enable the naturalization of many people, especially in western Canada, who have proved to be good citizen material but who have not for one reason or another learned to speak French or English.
On the other hand, there is a slightly greater strictness in the new qualifications in the bill in requiring a knowledge "of the responsibilities
and privileges of Canadian citizenship." Coming into the Canadian family is, of course, a great honour, but it entails certain obligations; and we hope in an objective manner, without trying to coerce, merely to lay before these new Canadian citizens the recognized facts of the Canadian scene, to lay before them through properly prepared material, prepared perhaps by non-governmental organizations who have the sanction of educational authorities, historians and so on, facts which will inform them not only of the opportunities and the privileges which they will acquire as future Canadian citizens, but of the obligations, for we cannot emphasize too much that along with privileges go obligations in citizenship. As one reads the report of the judges who sit on these applications for naturalization, one of the salutary things to note is that in so many instances, in fact the vast majority, there seems to be a recognition of the duties which these new citizens have to acquire. I attended recently a ceremony in Toronto when thirty-two persons were admitted into Canadian "citizenship" under the existing legislation, and I use the word "citizenship" here in quotation marks because it is not a correct statement of the legal situation. One of these new citizens wrote to me afterwards stating that he wanted to do something to show his appreciation of the kind of country to which he had been admitted. Both his mother and his father, though civilians, had been slaughtered by the nazis. He had come to this country in 1933, had returned in 1935 for two years, and came back at the end of that time. He was so impressed with the opportunities of this country that he wanted to tell the government and the people of his appreciation; and what could he do? I told him that it would be very difficult for me to suggest, other than that I trusted he would live up to the obligations entailed in being a good citizen of this country. I am pleased to state that that man showed his appreciation of the work of Judge Parker and the attempts that were being made by the naturalization branch, by giving to one of our universities, only Saturday last, the sum of $35,000 to be used by a particular university in encouraging and disseminating desirable information about Canadian life and the great opportunities which this country affords.
With regard to the other naturalization requirements, as I say, the relaxation consists in giving a knowledge of these responsibilities as well as these privileges. Apart from these minor points the general naturalization requirements remain unchanged.
Canadian Citizenship

have suffered, to the detriment of this magnificent country, it is from a feeling of divisiveness-lack of that fervent and urgent unity that can make a people work together as a great community with conviction that the welfare of all is the goal of their effort. It is not enough to be a good "Bluenose" or a good Ontarian or a good Albertan. Sectional differences and sectional interests must be overcome if we are to do our best for Canada. The only way this can be done is through encouraging a feeling of legitimate Canadianism. No matter where we come from or what our origins, French, English, Scandinavian, Scottish, Ukrainian, Irish or whatever else, one thing at least we can all be, and that is Canadians.
Citizenship means more than the right to vote; more than the right to hold and transfer property; more than the right to move freely under the protection of the state: citizenship is the right to full partnership in the fortunes and in the future of this nation.
With this bill we are linking our past with our future. We are saying to history and to our posterity: Here is the definition of Canadianism. Here is the common status in Canada, a common stake in the welfare of the country, a common Canadian citizenship.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the minister a question? Is it the intention that the bill be sent to a committee of the house? I believe that was the intention last fall.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman is
quite correct; that was the intention last year. The reason for the decision to proceed before a committee last year was to facilitate the passage of the bill because of the shortness of the session; but at the moment it is not the intention to proceed to committee.


Mr. FLEMING:: May I ask the minister a further question? Would the minister be kind enough to indicate whether the provisions of the bill are intended to have any relation to the franchise?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know whether I am in order in answering.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I prefer to deal with that when we come to the sections of the bill. We are now dealing only with the principle of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: With much, if not all, that has been said by the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) I am in agreement, particularly where he said that this measure symbolizes our aspirations as a nation.

As I conceive it, this measure translates into the days of peace the unity of our nation in war. During two wars men without regard to racial origin served this nation as Canadians. Now the opportunity and the privilege is to be given to them in peace to serve their nation in the years to come as Canadians.
The minister has gone at some considerable length into the questions of domicile, citizenship and naturalization, matters most difficult of concept and interpretation. I realize that this bill goes a long way to resolve many of the difficulties that prevail in these_ subjects; nevertheless I am sure that in the committee stage all of us will be able to contribute some suggestions that may result in beneficial improvements of the bill.
This is one measure where political considerations fade and where we as Canadians can view it free and untrammeled. With the bill the official opposition is in agreement. Indeed in one of the first utterances of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), after he was chosen as the leader of this party, in Kingston at a memorial service to the memory of Sir John A. Macdonald in 1043 he called upon the people of Canada to establish in this country a citizenship free from racial origin and unhyphenated. He called upon the people to carry out the dream of founders and builders of confederation that all may be privileged tocall ourselves Canadians.	,
"This bill achieves a lifelong dream of mine. Ever since my earliest days I have advocated the necessity for a change in the attitude in the law and of officialdom toward Canadians.. One criticism that I voiced on. the first occasion that I ever spoke in this chamber was that the bureau of statistics in insisting on the census being taken by racial origin was denying that citizenship which Canadians had the right to ask for, and which our friends and kinsmen across the line have established for many years.
I realize that there has been a Canadian nationality, in an abstract sort of way, for many years, under the acts referred to by the minister. But that citizenship has been denied, in effect when in each succeeding census paternal racial origin has been required of our citizens.	_
This is an important piece of legislation and will give to Canadians a new vista of their responsibilities and privileges as citizens. But legislation of itself can never build a united citizenship. If there is one thing on this occasion that we should do, when we pass this bill and make it the law of the country, it is to determine that individually, henceforth, we owe ourselves the compulsion, regardless of

Canadian Citizenship
our racial origin, of understanding each other's point of view. We must dedicate our determination to encourage and develop in this country mutual trust and mutual tolerance. Above all, we must restrain the undermining of our Canadian confederation through encouraging or developing a dislike of Canadians of other racial origins, for Canada's destiny and Canada's future can and will never be achieved on the basis of racial prejudice.
The minister has said that Chnada has served civilization well in two wars. But the prophetic dreams of nationhood, the vision of Macdonald and Cartier, remain as yet to be completed^-Legislation of itself will not complete it. [Canada must develop, now that we achieve this citizenship, unity out of diversity -a diversity based on non-homogeneous peoples of many religions, peoples of clashing economic differences based on distances, and jurisdictional differences as between federal and provincial authoritiesjThe great challenge to our generation is to fuse these clashing differences, and to build for that unity which, beginning with the dreams of the fathers of confederation, has been cemented by a common sacrifice in two wars.
I repeat that in my opinion one of the most destructive features that has prevented the creation of an unhyphenated nation has been the census requirements, carrying forth from generation to generation racial origin, and not service and citizenship as a basis of registration.
I remember well discussing this matter in the house on August 11, 1944, upon which occasion the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave the promise to the people of Canada that at the earliest possible occasion he would bring in a measure to assure an unhyphenated Canadian citizenship. Instead of repeating the arguments I then used, may I with the indulgence of the house repeat the words I then uttered. We were then in the midst of a war.
The minister has mentioned an example of sacrifice and service to our country on the part of one of alien origin. As he uttered those words my thoughts went back to an occasion in 1942 when, while visiting a town in southern Saskatchewan, a man came up to me and asked me whether because his son was serving as an air gunner he was being discriminated against because he, the father, came from Germany a matter of twenty years before. I told him that such was not the fact. Proud he was of the service of that son. Two weeks later the boy received the Distinguished Flying Medal; later on he was commissioned. Throughout Saskatchewan to-day, in the homes of families the parents of which came from continental Europe, are to be found young men who were
honoured in the service with decorations, young men proud of their citizenship and, what is even more important, prepared to fight for that citizenship which had been gained only a few years before.
The words I uttered on that occasion were these:
As one wads the casualty lists each day one is impressed with the fact that without regard to racial origin Canadians are living and dying for their country and their empire. Yet when these young Canadians return ,to this country, what do they come back to? They come back/ to a. Canada which insists that they shall not) designate themselves as Canadians, but shall prefix their paternal national origin, regardless of the number of generations their families have! been in this country.	__j
Then a little later on:
As I have said before, no one thinks of Mr. Roosevelt as a Dutch-American. No one thinks of General Eisenhower as a German-American. No one thinks of Mayor LaGuardia of New York as an Italian-Americam. They are great Americans. We perpetuate this thing every ten years in our census, the excuse being that it is necessary bo have the information as to ethnic groups.
And I concluded with these words:
Those who serve in the Canadian' armed forces are proud of the "Canada" on their shoulder straps, and without regard to hyphenated considerations. While they serve they are Canadians. I ask the Prime Minister 16 round out this great programme which he has placed before the house in the last few days for the benefit and rehabilitation of our men who serve by making the necessary amendments which will once for >ald and without .regard to origin, enable men and women of this country to call themselves Canadians, and by so doing unite this country as never before.
The Prime Minister followed me on that occasion, with these words, which to-day have been translated into the bill now before the house:
I wish to conclude by referring to what my hon. friend said about hoping'that we might, in some way, find it possible to have the citizens of this whole nation1 bound together as Canadians and so recognized and recorded in all government records and 'registrations. He said that, without regard to racial origin, Canadians are living and dying for their country, .and that, above everything else, we should see particularly as respects those brave men who have .been fighting overseas, that upon their return they should be all classed as Canadians, He hoped that, irrespective of racial origin, they would be recognized as Canadians without having to put *any prefixes before their names. May I say to my hon. friend that in that I am in entire and wholehearted agreement with him. I cannot express too strongly the feeling I have that some of these practices which have been carried on by the census branch for statistical purposes, or possibly for ethnological purposes-I believe that is the way it is described-might he done away with. I would be happy to join with my hon. friend and with any others in seeking to

Canadian Citizenship
do my part to see absolute recognition, or recognition made in an absolute way of men and women who were born in this country, and those who have become Canadian citizens being regarded as Canadians first, foremost and all the time,..
I cannot understand the idea behind the census that blood counts should loom so large in determining Canadian citizenship. When the statistics were collected they were inaccurate. As a matter of fact, the manner in which nationality was determined is set forth in the instructions issued for the last census. These are contained in a pamphlet, a page of which I have before me, and are as I follows:
As a general rule a person's racial origin is to j be traced through his father, e.g., if a person's ! father is English and his mother French, the racial origin shall be entered as English, while i a person whose father is French and whose j mother is English, shall be entered as French.
On the basis of that the ethnological argument disappears of itself. In the United States the idea that racial origin is important was done away with many years ago. Under the census regulations of that country the only persons who are required to register on the basis of racial origin are those who are naturalized, the only separation in the registration being that those of the negro, Indian, Chinese and Japanese races are required so to I register.
This bill is an important step forward. In my opinion it will do more to join this dominion together in unity in the days of peace than any other measure that has come before this parliament. But within the last few days something has happened that I think should be brought to the attention of the house because it indicates that even now the rights of Canadian citizens are not being respected as they should be. I referred this afternoon to order in council P.C. 6577, passed on October 23, 1945. The preamble to that order in council reads:
And whereas it is therefore deemed necessary, by reason of the war, for the security, defence, peace, order [DOT]and welfare of Canada that provision as hereinafter set forth be made for the arrest and deportation of persons in Canada suspected of being deserters from the United States forces or of being absent from the United States forces without leave.
This order in council passed in October, 1945, provides that any person suspected may be arrested without warrant. It provides that any person arrested who does not sign a release permitting his deportation to the United States shall be brought before an immigration board and the question determined as to whether or not he is a deserter from the United States army. As far as that order in

council is concerned, if the purpose were to assure a mutual exchange of deserters as between the countries, I would not argue against it, in so far as it affects American citizens. But what I do object to is this: Whereas under the extradition law of this country no Canadian can be deported for an offence committed beyond Canada, except certain designated offences, this order in council is passed and provision is made whereby a native-born Canadian or a Canadian citizen may be deported to another nation at the request of that nation. That is a denial of the rights of Canadian citizenship.
What has happened in the last few days in Winnipeg? A Canadian by the name of MeCloy went to the United States in 1929 and joined the United States army. Later on, he went absent without leave and was sentenced subsequently to two years' imprisonment. He escaped after a period of six months and came back to Canada in September, 1939. He joined the Canadian army and went overseas and served until August, 1945, when he received an honourable discharge.
On March 26, 1946, this man was arrested, put in gaol and later granted bail. When I endeavoured to ask a question about this matter of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) this afternoon he did not give me very much assistance in having it answered. This was a matter of great moment to a Canadian citizen. The minister glossed it over as being unimportant. The man came up to-day before the immigration board in Winnipeg. I am informed that the evidence against him consisted of a letter from Mr. Hoover of the F.B.I. in Washington and another letter from another official in Washington. The man went on the stand in his own defence, and after he gave his evidence the commissioner said that he had received instructions that the matter was to be held in abeyance for the time being.
This order in council was passed after the war by this government when it realized that it could not get through an extradition treaty that it had dangled before this house last session. That order in council denies to Canadians the right to be tried in their own country and not in any other country or at the direction of any other country. Furthermore, it made retroactive on October 23, 1945. an offence that was not extraditable until the order in council in question was passed. Is this another order in council that somehow found its way into the mill without being properly examined?

Canadian Citizenship
I suggest to the minister that the order in council be amended so that it will not cover Canadian citizens and make them deportable for military offences. This is but another example of orders in council passed by the government that would never be passed by this parliament, an order in council denying to Canadian citizens their rights and depriving them of the privileges incident to Canadian citizenship, the privileges which were so eloquently stated by the Secretary of State.
This order in council cannot be glossed over with suave phraseology. I ask the minister, and I know Canadians in all parts of this country would ask the minister also if they had the opportunity, to change it, to alter it and to revoke it so that it will not make Canadian citizens subject to deportation for trial in any other country except under legislation passed by this parliament.
I pass on to another phase. The minister dealt somewhat briefly with section 10. Section 10 provides, among other things, that a British subject coming to Canada from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland or Newfoundland cannot become a Canadian citizen unless he files notice of intention with the court and unless he comes before the court in the same way as any other person coming from any other country would be required to do. I ask the minister to explain why at this time when we in all parts of the empire are desirous in the interest of our own security to bind still closer the various parts of the empire together, should a British subject coming into Canada and properly entering this country under our immigration law be required to go through the same formalities as persons coming from other parts of the world?
I ask, too, this question: Is it not a dangerous principle to adopt at this time? Is it not one which may well strike at the unity of British citizenship everywhere within this empire?
These are questions which I think the minister should have answered. But he went over that section very quickly and indicated that there was a very small change made. There is a very important change made because for the first time in our history we are requiring a British citizen, under a common king and with a common loyalty, coming to this country to have to go through the same formalities as those coming from foreign countries.
Having established the basis of Canadian citizenship and having given a new unity to this country, I suggest that citizenship, if it is to mean what our citizenship does mean, 63260-33
requires that at this time-I referred to this incidentally the other day-we should consider the adoption by Canada of a Bill of Rights. There have been recent infringements upon citizenship by this government which have been a denial of the heritage that is ours. But Canadian democracy means something when public opinion speaks. The order in council P.C. 6444 of October 5 last has passed into history only because of the force of public opinion in this country, for when the people, realized what its provisions meant to them individually, the government found itself forced to revoke that order in council.
I may be asked, why do we need a Bill of Rights? The British North America Act contains no personal safeguards against unwise or discriminatory legislation that might be passed by federal governments. It vests in the Minister of Justice or in the government the power to annul provincial encroachments on our rights, but it contains nothing to prevent the government of this country by order in council from doing things which deny to Canadians the rights that flow from the achievement of Canadian and British citizenship. Some may ask me why the British North America Act does not contain such a Bill of Rights. I do not know. But I believe this, that when the fathers of confederation drafted that act the theory of personal liberty was so embedded in English common law that the fathers of confederation did not believe that further safeguards cf individual liberty were necessary.
The United States of America had no Bill of Rights in its original constitution, but it found it necessary to establish a Bill of Rights in order to prevent infringements upon its citizenship which, with too great regularity in recent months, in continuation of what was taking place during the war, have characterized this government under order in council.
In the United States, federal and provincial legislatures under their Bill of Rights were forbidden to interfere with certain basic rights common to all citizens, regardless of race, religion or qolour. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures was guaranteed. In the Bill of Rights of the United States it is provided that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The order in council P.C. 6577, and the order in council of October 5, 1945, P.C. 6444, which I believe will always be remembered as the forgotten order in council, interfere with the fundamental rights of citizenship which were referred to by the Secretary of State.

Canadian Citizenship

Ts it not time that in this country as in Great Britain these rights shall not be interfered with except under a law passed by the parliament of Canada?
When I think of the abrogation of habeas corpus in recent months I find upon an examination of British constitutional development that only nine times in British history was it interfered with in Britain, and then only by statute or under powers contained in a statute to abrogate habeas corpus. We grant the greatest privilege to an individual, that of Canadian citizenship, conveying as it does as well the right of British citizenship. We have gone a step forward. We are making a great advance under this bill. Now let us go one step farther and assure to generations yet to come and assure to our people who will become Canadian citizens that they shall not be denied at any time in the future by order in council those rights that ordinarily are incident to our citizenship.
My time has almost elapsed, but I should like to say this too. In the development of a Canadian nationality everything should be done by the government to encourage and develop Canadian literature and drama and art. The minister has taken a great interest in his department of state. His officials and the officials of other departments worked hard in the drafting of this bill which in every section reveals careful application and much study. I believe that his department might well be utilized as a department for the purpose of widening still further our Canadian citizenship. I believe that his department should establish scholarships available to worthy students to encourage the study of Canadian literature, drama and art, to the end that we should have not only a citizenship but a [DOT] distinctive Canadian art and a distinctive Canadian culture. What would the development of a department like that mean? It would stimulate and support artistic endeavours and assure that Canadian writers, musicians, painters and others would have the support which, only the state can give. It would assure that Canadians would extend their cultural heritage for the benefit of Canadians of this and future generations; for we must not forget that one of the most trying problems in this country to-day is that having given our young Canadians an opportunity of securing a wide education, when they have finished that education, too often by reason of the greater monetary attractions of the United States the cultural development which they should have left in our country is lost to us because there is no department of government to encourage and stimulate their endeavours and to assist them.

For 140 years my ancestors on both sides have made this country their home. For 140 years they and other Canadians have been denied true citizenship. They have been denied the use of those proud words which the minister used: "I am a Canadian.' All my life I have hoped for this day. I believe it means much to this country and to our future. Canada to me means more than the ownership of acres; it means a citizenship which maintains in this part of North America the highest heritage of British peoples everywhere in the world. It means to Canadians, without regard to racial origin, freedom and tolerance and liberty. It is because it means those things to me, sir, that from time to time during the period of the war and since,
I have been critical of the invasions and encroachments on our rights and on these principles of citizenship which constitute the heritage of British peoples.
To-day in this world two ideologies face one another. If ever there was a time when we should assert and practise what our citizenship means, it -is now. The minister has given the lead in that regard in the establishment of schools to the end that citizenship will be taught, and also in the ceremonies which hereafter will be established in order to imbue the minds of those who come to our country with what that citizenship will mean to them. But, believing in freedom, I think we give a poor lead to these people when we endeavour to justify the adoption, in times of peace, of totalitarianism in order to oppose totalitarianism. It is our duty and responsibility as Canadian citizens to maintain those principles and traditions which mean so much to us and to guard against infringement of the great principles of freedom; for, sir, the hallmarks of liberty can be erased as a result of the acts of a zealous person who is misdirected, no less than by one who destroys those principles with evil intent. We will give a great citizenship to Canadians hereafter. We will give them freedom-that we promise-in this country. Let us not deny freedom by executive action on the part of the state, for in doing that we destroy all for which our citizenship stands.
The pages of history tell their story. They tell the story that freedom, like capital, cannot be overdrawn, nor can freedom be preserved while it is being destroyed piecemeal fashion.


Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, as the minister so eloquently stated, is to give further expression to the progress which Canadians have miade on the road toward sovereignty. It has

Canadian Citizenship
been a gradual progress and evolution; and in laying this bill before parliament the government, I know, is giving way to the desire of the majority of the Canadian people to establish a distinctly Canadian citizenship.
_ Canadian citizenship is a fact to-day, and it is but proper that we give a legal status to that fact. If this condition is true; if a majority of Canadians are anxious to put upon this Canadian citizenship this stamp of legal approval, and if all these eloquent words which the minister has told us are true, I think he should have put a preamble to this bill which would give the development of our sovereignty and express pride in the progress we have made and that we are now ready to put this legal status of Canadian citizenship on the people.
While I am. in full agreement with this measure, which I believe was actuated by the government upon the principles stated by the minister this evening. I have grave doubts as to the legality of parts of this legislation. I say that in all seriousness and in all friendliness towards the minister.
To make my argument clear, I should like to trace briefly the development and the history of naturalization and sovereignty. Prior to 1914, as the minister stated, we had a Naturalization Act under which aliens were made British subjects within Canada only. The adaption by the parliament of Canada of this legislation prior to 1914 was undoubtedly an act of sovereignty on our part. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said at the imperial conference in 1911:
. The power of naturalization is one of the incident .powers of sovereignty and one of the most important attributes of sovereignty.
However, while this old law was an act of sovereignty, we were at that time by no means as sovereign as we are to-day. The old naturalization law was not of much use to a naturalized citizen when he travelled beyond the boundaries of this country, because then he lost his British citizenship and he was a man with no country at all. When I said that we were then not as sovereign as we are now, I may point out that at that time we had no embassies, no legations' no high commissioners and no consulates to which a Canadian might apply for protection in case he got into difficulty -in some foreign country. It was no doubt owing to this state of affairs that in 1914 the British parliament passed an act concerning British naturalization and the status of aliens. This act deals with the naturalization of aliens, and it was provided in part II of the act that it might be adopted by any legislature of a British
possession or dominion, and, if so, then a certificate of naturalization granted by such a dominion should have the same effect as a certificate granted under this act. This meant that if we adopted the Biritish act any persons who were naturalized would be recognized as British subjects all over the world. Pursuant to this British act we passed our own Naturalization Act in 1914; that is the law which is at present in force, and part II of our act is identical with part II of the British naturalization act. However, this enactment of 1914 was no advancement in sovereignty over the old act. It was not passed in consequence of the powers which we possessed under section 91 of the British North America Act, but by virtue of the British statute already referred to, and the British statute gave it legal effect and force.
I have already said that we adopted verbatim, with only minor necessary changes, part II of the British act. We therefore became entitled to issue certificates of naturalization to aliens as British subjects, who were supposed to be recognized as such all over the world; and I presume that was the case. It seems to me that now under this new legislation we want to have a Canadian citizenship, which I endorse and which is quite proper and natural, and at the same time we also wish to legislate as to British nationality. I maintain that we cannot do so, at least not as the present act is worded. If the present bill becomes law we repeal the present Naturalization Act; that is provided in the last or second last section of the bill. By repealing the present act we would also lose our power to pass any legislation as to who shall be a British subject, because we would also repeal the applicability of the British act.
On the strength of this argument I would say that section 26. which says that a Canadian is a British subject, is beyond the powers of this parliament to legislate. I have no personal objection to this section; I rather like it, but I simply doubt the legality of it. Perhaps it was necessary for some reason unknown, but I submit sincerely that only the British parliament can legislate as to who is a British subject. However, I think I have a way out, and I suggest as an alternative to section 26 the following.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am veiy much interested in the argument of the hon. member but at this stage the rules of the house provide for a discussion of the principle of the bill only. When we come to deal with the sections I am sure the suggestion of the hon. member will be of great interest to the house as it certainly will
63260-33J
Canadian Citizenship

be of great interest to me, but at the beginning I think it would be well to establish clearly in this general debate the desirability of maintaining the rules of the house, which at this stage call for a discussion of the principle of the bill only.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The minister dealt with these sections, and surely I can deal with them in the same way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, all I
did was deal with the principle of the bill and certain provisions of the bill. I did not discuss the sections.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: This portion of my remarks is very short.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think we shall find that the debate will be more helpful and efficient if we observe the rules. The important suggestion the hon. member is making now, which interests me greatly, I think could be dealt with more effectively if he would make it when we come to discuss the particular sections.
I am sure he will find this is the best way to deal with the matter because it will give his suggestion a much better opportunity for consideration.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I would suggest-


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member for Kindersley to Beau-chesne, third edition, paragraph 656, at page 228:
The second reading of a hill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure. On the motion for second reading it is out of order to' discuss the clauses of the bill.


Major James William Coldwell: May I respectfully submit to Your Honour the hon. member for Kindersley is discussing the principle of citizenship, the principle of this bill. His argument, as I understand it, is that a certain part of this bill is ultra vires of the power of this parliament, namely to decide who shall be a British citizen, which is the right of the British parliament. Since this includes a principle of Canadian citizenship I submit that the hon. member has the right to proceed with what he is saying.


Howard Charles Green: May I add, Mr. Speaker, that all the members of the opposition are very much concerned about any ruling of this type being made. In order to review the principle of the bill it is necessary to refer to what is contained in certain sections. That is exactly what the minister himself did. Surely if he could do that we should have the
 -
same privilege. If we are to be restricted as the minister suggests it will be impossible effectively to debate the principle of this bill.


James Horace King: I did not call the hon. member to order. Since he was a new member last session I just wished to draw his attention to the fact that in the House of Commons it is the practice on second reading to discuss only the principle of a bill.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Well, instead of suggesting an amendment, as I tried to do, I shall put it in this way. I mentioned that section 26 in my opinion is beyond the powers of this parliament because we have no right to say who is' a British subject. But we can say this, that a Canadian citizen is a subject of His Majesty as sovereign of Canada, and I think that would be the proper way to put this section. I believe such a section would be quite legal and ought to satisfy all persons, while at the same time it is a true statement of the status of a Canadian citizen. It is still debatable just how far we have progressed on the road to sovereignty, but there is no doubt that we have advanced far enough to say who shall be a Canadian citizen. According to the statute of Westminster the dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation, and since the passing of that statute we have exerted our power extraterritorially. We can now take our nationals anywhere and they will receive protection. There is also no question but that Canada, especially during the last ten years, has been recognized as a sovereign state. The debate this afternoon and the remarks of the minister this evening bear this out. If for no other reason than that, we should assert our right to create Canadian citizens, and in so doing we can assert and emphasize our British connection in a natural and quite legal manner. I think the suggestion I have made as to section 26 should meet the objections of those who have an extreme desire for sovereignty, as well as of those who hold the British connection dear to their hearts.
For these reasons, of course, the act would have to be amended in a great many other places. For instance, it would seem to me that section 22 is beyond the powers of this parliament, in that it presumes to revoke a certificate granted in another country within the British commonwealth, even though this is done with the concurrence of the government of that country. Likewise section 28 is not only ultra vires but is unnecessary, because other nations of the British Commonwealth are sovereign states, just as we are, and we recognize the status of the nationals of sovereign states by the amity of nations.

Privilege
I do not wish it to be understood from my arguments that I am against the sentiments contained in these sections. I am all in favour of them, but both sections presume some authority which we do not possess. It is up to the British parliament alone to say who is a British subject. I think the way the act is framed it might entail some serious consequences to a naturalized Canadian if he wants to assert his British nationality.
In view of the fact that the house wishes to go into committee of supply, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Jaenicke the debate was adjourned.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administrative service-
1. Departmental administration, $103,190.
Item stands-.

[Stage Direction]
200. Departmental administration, $422,774.
Item stands-.

[Stage Direction]
76. Departmental administration, $170,340.
Mr. COLD WELL:: How many departments were agreed upon?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Three.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is quite a number to go in at one time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the same as last year.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am raising the point that, three departments going in, in the one night does restrict the members of this house in bringing forward anything on going into supply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We shall have two the next time.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, April 3, 1946.