1946-04-05

[Stage Direction]
journal"
Mr. BENOIT MICHAUD (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to what I
believe is a question of privilege, and I hope that my point is well taken.
In the Ottawa Journal of this morning there appears an editorial headed as follows:
Mr. Speaker misunderstands the House of Commons.
In this ill-advised and ill-mannered editorial the anonymous writer-and incidentally I have no more respect than I should for those who have not the courage to sign the gems of wisdom which come out of their pens- criticizes your conduct, Mr. Speaker, in the following terms:
It seemed to show also that Mr. Speaker Fauteux either doesn't understand the spirit of the House of Commons rules or imagines that his duty as Speaker is to protect the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Benoît Michaud: He concludes his editorial with these words:
It is worse than pitiful when the Speaker tries to make it even worse than it is-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I will ask the
hon. member to state his question of privilege.


Benoît Michaud: I say that these words are a reflection on the Speaker of this houses-an unwarranted attack, Mr. Speaker, on yourself. I feel that they should be withdrawn, and I would ask the writer of this article, if he is a gentleman, to withdraw his remarks.



PRESS REPORT AS TO DIVORCE PROCEDURE-F.E.I. DIVORCE COURTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): I rise to a question of privilege affecting at the same time this house and the province of Prince Edward Island. I have under my hand 63260-38
a clipping of an editorial which appears in the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, April 3, entitled "Degradation of Parliament" and discussing divorce actions before this house. I would read one sentence. The editorial states:
Most of these (divorce) applications come from Quebec and Prince Edward Island-provinces without divorce courts.
I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that since last year, 1045, Prince Edward Island has had its own divorce courts, and that my province is not encumbering either the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada with divorce cases.


[Stage Direction]
Second, third and fourth reports of special committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Tucker.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. B. ISNOR (Halifax) moved that the second report of the special committee on war expenditures and economies, presented' on April 3, be concurred' in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Reconstruction, or perhaps the Minister of Transport. I gave notice of it to the Minister of Reconstruction. It has to do with the establishment in Montreal of the international civil aviation organization. The question is prompted by some criticism of Canada and of the government because of the delay in securing suitable accommodation for that organization. Will the minister advise what steps if any the government has taken to aid in the establishment of this organization in that city? '


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: I would point out to my hon. friend that the difficulty in obtaining office space in any city is always with us in times like these. PICAO was housed originally in Dominion Square building in quarters that were adequate at the time, but since then the requirements have expanded. Their expanded requirements were met in the first stage by making available one half floor in the Sun Life building, and recently further steps were taken to make available eleven thousand feet of floor space on another floor of the Sun Life building, which will be in possession of PICAO by

Veterans Affairs

April 10. My advice therefore is that the requirement for office space is fully met at the present time.	.


John Bracken: The minister is not concerned about the possibility of losing the organization's headquarters in Montreal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am very much concerned about it, but I believe that in the circumstances the members of PICAO recognize that the government of Canada is doing its 'best. I do not believe there is any complaint from the members at the moment regarding the arrangements that will obtain after April 10.



QUESTION AS TO APPLICATION OP PRICE INCREASE TO DAIRY BUTTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, and if he is not here, possibly the Minister of Agriculture can answer it. Did the recent increase in the ceiling price of butter apply to dairy butter as well as to creamery butter, and if not, why?
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: My understanding is that it does
not, but that decision was made by the prices and trade board and I would not care to give the reasons.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: Can the Minister of Reconstruction advise the house whether building materials allotted to projects such a? veterans hospitals will be considered as a part of the total allotment to a municipality, or whether such allotments of materials will be separate from the municipal allotment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Projects such as veterans hospitals, which have the highest priority in the obtaining of materials, are not considered a part of the allotment to the municipalities. Supplies for projects of that type are furnished ex quota.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Arising out of my question to the Minister of Reconstruction I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he can say w'hen Sunnybrook hospital will be completed, equipped and staffed.
^ Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I cannot make a statement 
with any definiteness, but I can assure my hon. friend that, in conjunction with various other departments of government, we are doing everything we can to expedite the completion of the hospital in question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, notice of which I have already sent him. Does the government contemplate permitting the use of German prisoners of war in the sawmills at Whitecourt, Alberta?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Prisoners of war will not be used at Whitecourt, Alberta. At present there are thirty prisoners of war there, and they will be transferred on April 30 to another place.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the second reading of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens.
Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: When the house rose on Tuesday night I had discussed the phases of the bill which deal with British citizenship and upon which I maintain this parliament has no power to legislate, because we have repealed the applicability of the British Naturalization Act which previously gave us the power to make British subjects in this country.
I now have a few words of praise for the minister in connection with the section which deals with the qualifications of an applicant for naturalization. I am pleased that he has inserted paragraph (f) in section 10, which requires an applicant to have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship. I commend the minister particularly for the insertion of sections 37 and 38. Section 37 provides that:
The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, shall take such measures as to him may appear fitting to provide facilities to enable applicants for certificates of citizenship to receive instruction in the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship.
Section 38 gives the judge ivho hears the application authority to impress upon the applicants, by appropriate ceremonies, the respon-

Canadian Citizenship
sibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship. I warmly approve these provisions of the bill, which will make for better citizenship and will impress the candidate for citizenship at the time he is received into the great family of the Canadian nation.
For a few moments I should like to deal with the sections of the bill which deal with the loss of Canadian citizenship. In that connection I have some criticisms to offer. If we take all this care which we now intend to take-and it is a far cry from the time that we made citizens prior to 1914 in western Canada at least-we should get a better citizenship. We should accept our citizens for better or for worse. There should be no discrimination so far as the loss of citizenship is concerned. Section 20 of the bill provides that if a naturalized Canadian citizen has left this country and resided outside of Canada for a period of at least six years he shall, with certain qualifications and exceptions, lose his certificate of naturalization in Canada. This refers only to a naturalized Canadian citizen. I am somewhat in favour of that. If a person leaves this country and has no connection with it at all, it should be presumed that he does not care to belong to this family any longer; but I suggest that we make this absence from Canada without reasonable and proper cause to be a presumption that he never intended to reside permanently in Canada, which would .mean that he did not make a bona fide application at the time he filed his application, and that it could be revoked for fraud. I mentioned a moment ago that I thought we should take our citizens for better or for worse. There is only one ground upon which the naturalization certificate should be revoked, namely, fraud. I consider a certificate of naturalization to be in the nature of a contract. The applicant for naturalization makes an offer to the government, and when the government issues the certificate of naturalization, it accepts that offer. These are the essential ingredients of a contract. If the contract has been induced by fraud or misrepresentation, it can be vitiated and repudiated. For the same reason a certificate of naturalization should be repudiated or cancelled. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these are the only grounds upon which we should revoke a naturalization certificate.
As I have already said, the absence from Canada without proper . cause should be a presumption that the individual did not mean what he said when he made the application and said that he wanted to reside permanently in Canada. It will give the applicant a chance, under the provisions of section 21, to have a hearing and to state his case 63260-381
before the tribunal prescribed in that section, and still preserve his nationality or his Canadian citizenship if he has good grounds to offer.
Section 21 also deals with revocation. Paragraph (a) states-


Mr. MARTIN:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I regret having to do this, because the hon. gentleman is making a helpful and constructive speech, but if I do not take this attitude now I shall be accused, when other members proceed to discuss particular sections, of not having objected to the course now being pursued by the hon. gentleman. I am following the hon. gentleman's speech with close interest, but he is now discussing particular sections and that is certainly contrary to the rules of the house. We are now debating the principle of the bill. There will be ample opportunity when we are in committee for the hon. gentleman to make what I know are suggestions which he has carefully considered and which may help the house materially in considering the provisions of the bill as they now stand.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I say a word on the point of order? It is true that the hon. gentleman, in discussing the principle' of the bill, has referred to certain sections. In all probability that is questionable under our rules; nevertheless I feel that in making these references he is really dealing with the principle underlying the bill itself; hence, in the circumstances the references should be excused. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman can do exactly what he is doing by simply refraining from mentioning the particular section he is discussing, and saying that the bill provides so-and-so.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I am sorry if I have offended against the rules, and I shall govern myself accordingly.


Mr. GREEN:: On the point of order, as I said the other day, it will be impossible for us to debate this bill in a proper way on second reading if we are not allowed to refer to some of the sections. The minister himself did that throughout his speech the other day. He told us what one part meant and what another part meant. This is a complicated and important bill. Last jmar it was the intention to send it to a committee of the house where it could be carefully studied. That course is not to be followed this year. I suggest to the minister that it would be to his own interests, and certainly in the best interests of the house, if in our speeches we were allowed to say what we thought was wrong with some of these sections or indicate ways in which they could be improved.
Canadian Citizenship

If that is done, then there will be an opportunity to give consideration to the suggestions before the bill is passed through the committee stages. It will then be too late to make the necessary amendments.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read from the report of the speech of the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) which he made on the evening of April 2, to show that he was guilty of the very offence that he now charges against the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke). At page 508 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
I come now to part IV of the bill which deals with the rights and obligations of naturalized Canadian citizens, and represents no change from the present situation. Sections 26 and 28 are complementary and provide for the continuation of the common status of British subjects that has always prevailed through the commonwealth.
The minister's whole speech is along the same line, and that is nothing more or less than what the hon. member for Kindersley is now doing.


John Bracken: Before you give your ruling, sir, may I add just one word? With the principle of what the minister has said I personally am in entire agreement, but I am not in agreement with its strict application in this instance. What is the principle of this bill? If there is just one principle I think every hon. member in 'this parliament is in favour of it; and if we follow that logic through to its conclusion there is no purpose at all in this debate. With all deference I suggest to Your Honour that the hon. member who has the floor should not be held too strictly to the rules which have been mentioned.


James Horace King: I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that some hon. gentlemen have suggested that, since this bill is very important, it should be discussed clause by clause. Hon. members will understand that even if the bill is an important one, we have standing orders in this house which must be followed. As my hon. friend knows, in Beauchesne's third edition at page 228 it is stated that on' the motion for second reading it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill. I understand that the hon. member who has the floor may refer to the various clauses, but I do not think he has the right on the motion for second reading to . discuss the bill clause by clause. He should not forget that after second reading is given the house will- go into committee of the whole, when he and all other hon. members will have the right to discuss every clause in the bill.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I shall try not to offend against the rules. However, I think I can say that I disagree with the portion of the bill which proposes to take away the certificate of naturalization of a citizen who is guilty of communicating with the enemy, as stated in the bill, or of committing similar acts; in other words, who is a traitor. Why should not a natural-born Canadian lose his citizenship for the same reason, I should like to know? That is one point I wish to raise. In addition, we have adequate provisions in the criminal code for dealing with traitors. I am in favour of the inclusion of this or a similar section in the bill, but I maintain that it should cover all Canadian citizens, whether naturalized or native-born.
The same remark would apply to another section which deals with disloyalty and disaffection toward His Majesty. I would make the same argument in that respect. Then a naturalized citizen is liable to loss of his Canadian citizenship if within a period of five years after he becomes a citizen he is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment 'for more than one year. As I said before, I object to that because I think we are now providing for good citizens by making the qualifications higher, and we should take them for better or for worse. In addition I maintain that this will not make for the good administration of justice. A prisoner, a naturalized Canadian citizen, is before the court accused of a crime, and is found guilty. He has been naturalized for less than five years. The facts relating to this man's personal circumstances, his family and so on, are brought before the judge, who because of .this provision might be inclined to give him a lesser penalty than otherwise he would receive. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this section is good for the administration of justice in this country.
I should like to make just one other point, and it is this. The act provides that if a certificate is issued the naturalized Canadian shall be entitled to all the rights, powers and privileges and subject to the same obligations and responsibilities as a native-born Canadian. It is singular that the word "political" has been-left out. If you look at the old act prior to 1911 you will find that the certificate of a naturalized Canadian provided that he was entitled to all the political and other rights, powers and privileges. The act at present in force also provides that a naturalized citizen is entitled to all the political and other rights, powers and privileges. If you look at the British act you find that naturalization confers all the political and other rights, powers and

Canadian Citizenship
privileges, and it is rather ominous to me to see that the word "political" has been left out here. Remembering the days of 1917 I urge that we restore the word "political" and leave the. law in that respect as it is now.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the discussion on this bill respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and the status of aliens I should like first of all to congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) on the masterful address he delivered on this subject last Tuesday. I should like also to commend the Minister for bringing this important measure before the house. May I also express a word of appreciation to the under secretary of state, the chief of the naturalization branch, and the other officials who assisted in the preparation of the proposed legislation.
Before proceeding with a discussion of the bill may I say in behalf of the Social Credit members in this house that we are in favour of the bill and intend to support it. In spite of the fact that in our opinion, two or three sections of the bill could be improved, Social Credit members consider the bill to be good. Moreover, they feel that this bill is long overdue, and therefore we welcome its introduction at this time.
Speaking now for myself, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity not only to comment on the principle of the bill but also to express my views on several other aspects of the proposed measure. r TSfs its long title indicates bill No. 7 covers a wide field. It has, as the minister pointed out, two main objectives: first, to achieve a clear and simple definition of Canadian citizenship by removing the complexities which are found in the old legislation, and, second, to provide a common status or, better still, a common denominator for all our people, the purpose of which is to draw our citizens closer together and thus bring about true unity in Canada.
I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members will agree that those two objectives are highly desirable. When this measure becomes law, Canadian citizens, natural-bom or naturalized, will have the right to call themselves Canadians. This does not mean, however, that until the introduction of this bill, we were not regarded as Canadians. The fact is that we were called Canadians. But for official purposes we had to declare that we were British subjects, and also designate our "nationality" by stating the country in which we were bom. Quite often some of
our citizens had to change from time to time [DOT] what was regarded as their nationality in order to comply with the change in control of the country in which they were born. The status of our citizens therefore was confusing and lacked permanency. The proposed bill aims to correct this.
Another important improvement in the act
is in regard to loss by naturalized Canadians of citizenship through absence from the country for more than one year. It was possible of course to extend this leave by appearing at the British embassy at the end of each year, but such leave could not be extended beyond the limit of five years. To students, for example, -whose funds are usually limited, and who had to travel long distances to the nearest British embassy, the old procedure was a financial burden. Under the new act, a naturalized Canadian will not lose his citizenship unless his absence exceeds at least six years.
A further change in the proposed act has to do with the procedure of acquiring Canadian citizenship. With this change in the procedure to make the ceremony more impressive and instructive, new Canadian citizens will feel a greater consciousness of and pride in becoming citizens of this great country.
Further, provision is made for the first time that an applicant for citizenship who has not an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages may be granted Canadian citizenship, provided that he has resided continuously in Canada for more than twenty years. I might point out that according to the 1941 census ninety-nine per cent of Canadians do speak one or both of the official languages. This particular provision, however, to which I have referred, applies mainly to a small section of population in the northern parts of the three prairie provinces. In this section of our country there settled some of our pioneers. In the early pioneer days there were no schools in these districts, and therefore no facilities for learning the English language. Their first task was to build houses, roads, schools, churches, and community halls, as well as to clear the land for productive purposes. To this section of our population we owe much for their generous contribution to the development of the vast sections of the Canadian west. Virtually with bare hands they cleared the land, and out of the wilderness they made the land blossom with wheat, barley, and rye. Despite their not having acquired an adequate knowledge of the English language, they have earned their place in this country by their industry and devo-
Canadian Citizenship

tion to Canada, and by their sons' sacrifices in world war II. I am personally very happy that at long last the Secretary of State has recognized the contribution made to Canada by these people, and by this act will give them an opportunity to apply for and be granted the status of Canadian citizen.
I should now like to deal with one or two criticisms of the bill. My chief criticism is that the bill carries over from the old legislation the distinction between Canadian-born citizens and naturalized Canadians. The section on revocation makes certain reservations regarding naturalized Canadians. In his speech the minister did point out that certain safeguards are necessary. In my opinion, however, this section should be limited to one clause, namely, the one covering treason and betrayal of the country. All other distinctions, in my opinion, should be removed.
, I maintain that nothing positive can be accomplished by having two sets of laws in Canada, one for Canadian-born citizens and the other for naturalized Canadians. It is my view that when a person is granted Canadians citizenship, he should have not only [DOT] equal responsibilities but also equal privileges. Our laws should be the same for both Canadian-born and naturalized citizens. Should a person be guilty of an offence, he should be brought before our courts of justice and dealt with as an individual. Therefore the revocation section in this bill and our immigration law's do make a distinction and are not applied equally to all our citizens. A naturalized Canadian, even under this bill, will lose his citizenship ifi he stays away for more than six years, but the same does not apply to Canadian-born citizens.
I should like to cite, Mr. Speaker, another instance of this undesirable distinction. May I refer to the defence of Canada regulations and point to the distinction which was drawn in our statute books between Canadian-born citizens and naturalized Canadians. At the beginning of the war the regulations known as the defence of Canada regulations were passed under the War Measures Act. Section 26 of this act as originally framed provided for the registration of enemy aliens. Later section 26(b) was enacted by an order in council which brought under this clause persons who were naturalized after September 1, 1922, who were born in territories which were under the sovereignty, or control of enemy countries on the dates on which Canada declared war on these countries.
Order in council P.C. 6150 of November 2, 1940, contains this paragraph:
That in view of the fact that certain persons who were not required to register under the

original regulations were under the impression that they were not affected by the subsequent regulations due to the fact that they were naturalized, some of them have been guilty of the offence of failing to register.
Such discriminatory measures, Mr. Speaker, are undesirable and harmful. We should not hold a Canadian responsible for the acts or the attitude of the country from which he originally came.
If we are to achieve the objectives which the minister outlined, we must eliminate distrust and suspicion from our midst. Moreover, legislation should not be placed in our statute books which perpetuates distinction and discrimination. We must do our utmost to make our naturalized Canadians feel that they are a part of our nation, if we are to have a truly strong and united country.
The task of building and strengthening our nation is a great one. I should like to quote a passage from a book entitled "Emily Murphy, Crusader", by Byrne Hope Sanders. It would be well for us to listen to what Emily Murphy, a great Canadian woman, had to say on Canadian nationhood:
This task of making real Canadians out of all who live in Canada cannot be accomplished by coercive measures,' nor by approaching these people in a superior, patronizing attitude, but by persuading them that Canada is their friend; -that we are williiig to guide and counsel them in their perplexity relating to laws, language, and customs.
Many of these people come to this dominion with a rich and varied handicraft, with a wealth of literary and artistic knowledge, a reverence for sacred things, for established order; with well-formed habits of thrift, and with a fine old world courtesy. We would be well advised to benefit by their gifts and acquirements even as we would expect they would benefit by ours. What we have to teach them in citizenship, language and laws, can only be done by a sympathetic respect for their pride, and a wise patience.
In its farewell address to the governor general and Princess Alice, this house unanimously endorsed an expression of gratitude to their excellencies for tiheir services to Canada during the past six years. The address contained1 the following passage:
It must be a source of profound gratitude to you, on your retirement as governor general to realize that your years in Canada have witnessed victory over the enemies of freedom, and the emergence of Canada as a world power, with a foremost place among the united nations.
I am sure that it is a source of deep satisfaction to all Canadians to know that Canada has reached the position of a "foremost power among the united nations." The granting of the new status of Canadian citizenship will be in keeping with this stature and will be a souroe of pride to Canadians. pWhen bill No. 7 becomes law and is placed on, our

Canadian Citizenship
statute books, all Canadians, regardless of origin, will be able to meet on common ground. There will then be a real unity in all matters that challenge our common interests.
While it must be admitted that certain changes (and adjustments of a constitutional or legal nature must still be made, the chief obstacle in the way of the realization of our full nationhood lies, in the main, in the cultural and economic spheres. Although we have drawn upon Great Britain for most of what we possess in the way of culture, traditions, history, institutions, our way of life, and centuries of experience in practical statecraft, we nevertheless have now arrived at the stage where we must begin to develop our own distinctive character^
Let me say this, however, that while Canadian nationhood is being crystallized, it will in no way lessen our ties with the British commonwealth; rather it will strengthen our position, as an equal member nation, within the British, family of nations.


Mr. EDOUARD RINFRET (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing bill No. 20 last session, the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) indicated that it was in reality a comprehensive amendment of the Naturalization Act, no more than a definition, a clarification of what existing statutes indicate Canadian nationality or citizenship to be.
Bill No. 7, which is essentially identical, is a substitute for the Naturalization Act. It replaces the Canadian Nationals Act; it improves the Immigration Act, without altering it to any great extent. It was away back in 1914 that the. words "British subject'' were defined by chapter 44. In 1921 the words "Canadian national" were defined by chapter 4, and in 1910 the words "Canadian citizen" were defined by chapter 27. These definitions, we are told, were unrelated, sometimes contradictory, and created difficulties of all kinds which it is sought to eliminate by the passing of the present bill.
I have no quarrel with the bill, inasmuch as its declared sole purpose is merely , to group together in a composite consolidation and to prune down and sort out articles which were previously scattered in three different laws, and for that reason I shall vote in favour of the bill.
I shall also support the bill because, although it does not go as far as, in my opinion, it might have gone, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction and will, I hope, be followed in the very near future by a further clarification and recognition. It has the merit of introducing, although incompletely and inadequately, a new significance, a meaning
hitherto non-existent, to the words "Canadian citizen" and of providing a medium whereby residents of the same country will be able to designate themselves legally. It will dispel the confusion which actually exists in the naturalization law, and will give to the inhabitants of this our country a necessary and long-awaited identity. However, this common appellation cannot alone and by itself promote true Canadianism or a real national status. In any event, I do not wish my vote to be interpreted as a reaffirmation of the principles enunciated in article 26, because I believe that this theory is antiquated, and, if I may so express myself, progressively conservative.
I do regret that the opportunity has not been seized of completely doing away with the . definitions of old and dusty statutes and of incorporating in the Canadian citizenship act the present-day concept of the majority of Canadians from ocean to ocean, that of Canadian subjects. Tags of 1910, 1914 or 1921 do not befit Canadians of 1946. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I have mentioned "Canadian subject" and not "Canadian citizen". We are told by specialists that a citizen is the inhabitant of a republic, whereas a subject is the inhabitant of a kingdom. Gladstone Murray wrote that Canadians were incurably royalists, and that "loyalty to the old country" had been replaced here in Canada by "loyalty to the crown." That is so, and may be more so amongst my Quebec compatriots than amongst others. One has only to recall the enthusiastic welcome of the French-speaking element of our population to Their Majesties in 1039 to admit with Mr. Murray that it was more rapturous than, and certainly as sincere as, that of their English-speaking fellow citizens. If these affirmations are true, as they are, would it not be preferable to use the term "subject" instead of the term "citizen", and would not this appellation better suit and express the aspirations of Canadians?
Here I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am incapable of understanding how the citizen of one country may at the same time be the subject of the king of another country. Is it not true that by the adoption of the statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada has become an independent kingdom, in personal union with the United Kingdom? As Maurice Olliviei has so delicately iexpressed it in his remarkable book. "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty":
The United Kingdom and Canada are to be considered as "separate kingdoms in personal union under the same king."
Is it not true, further, that a British subject is a subject of the king of Great Britain? How then, can a Canadian citizen-to wit, a citizen
Canadian Citizenship

of an independent sovereign state, Canada

be a British subject and owe allegiance to the king of a distinct sovereign state, Great Britain? The situation in 1946 is not the same as that of 1921. The aspirations have changed. What we need is the mentality of a common ideal, not merely a name. Should not attention have been given to the fact that the three statutes which the present bill seeks to replace were enacted at a time when internationally Canada was still in its infancy, long before the statute of Westminster established unequivocally the sovereignty of our country, at a time when Canada was represented in other countries principally by English diplomats, and when we did not have our own ambassadors and ministers?'
Canada has grown since 1910, 1914 and 1921. Canada is now a nation and has been recognized as such for at least twenty years by our co-members of the British commonwealth of nations, including Great Britain. The imperial conference of 1923 declared each dominion "free to negotiate and ratify its own treaties". That of 1926 agreed that each and all constituent members of the commonwealth were autonomous communities, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to the other in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common .allegiance to the crown, and freely associated. If Great Britain agreed that Canada was autonomous, equal, not subordinate, and united by the crown, why should some Canadians of English descent insist that it is not? If Great Britain has agreed that the crown is as much Canadian, Australian, Irish, as it is British, why should some so-called Canadians insist that it is not? Why should some so-called Canadians be more British than the king of Britain? The other nations of the world have long since recognized Canada's sovereignty. The few remaining restrictions on Canada's complete independence are, citing Clokie in his "Canadian Government and Politics", "relating to her connection with Great Britain and are relics of the time when Canada was a subordinate portion of the British empire." It is no longer a subordinate portion, and the relics should disappear.
There was a time also when Canada was a French colony: that was 185 years ago. In this short period Canada has progressed rapidly. It passed through what has been termed the first charter of Canadian liberty, the Quebec Act of 1774, through the Constitutional Act of 1791, through the Union Act of 1840, the confederation, and numerous imperial conferences. To-day, save for the [DOT]fact that fhere is officially no Canadian king,

that the British North American Act may not be amended except by the British parliament, and that appeals may still be lodged to the privy council in London, Canaida is free to conduct its internal or external affairs in whatever fashion it considers best for its own private interests. Even these thrpe restrictions are not deterring obstacles to Canada's complete and unrestricted independence, because Canada can of its own volition modify them and make them disappear.
One of our late ministers-I think it was that truly great Canadian, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe-at the beginning of the last war drew the attention of the House of Commons to the difference existing between His Majesty George VI, king of Ireland, who had not declared war upon Germany, and His Majesty'George VI, King of Canada, who had. Numerous are those who since that day have expressed similar views dealing with the separate entity of our sovereign. His Majesty the King, whatever may be his other titles, is in the affairs of Canada advised solely and completely by his Canadian ministers through the governor general or his administrator, and very definitely he could, and does, upon their counsel, decide differently from the king of Great Britain. I say, therefore, that even if in name he does not exist, in fact there is a king of Canada. I submit that when reference is made to the crown in any statute of Canada or in any imperial statute dealing with Canada, it is to this authority, to His Majesty George VI, who rules over Canada irrespective of his affiliations with other countries of the same commonwealth. I suggest that it is the essence of the statute of Westminster that Canada be united, to Britain through the crown, and not to the crown through Britain.
Concerning the amendments to the British North America Act, I do not believe that it would be exaggerated to claim that if both provincial and federal Canadian authorities were to apply to the British parliament and unanimously ask to be relieved of the obligation of submitting future amendments to London, and to be given such powers, these would be immediately forthcoming. The main obstacle is our lack of cooperation; there is no unanimity amongst ourselves.
As for appeals to the privy council, the question whether Canada has the power to abolish them is not even being discussed any more. The present difficulty is to know which jurisdiction, federal or provincial, has authority to act.
I am therefore justified in saying that Canada is a sovereign state, a world power; that it proved it magnificently and unques-;

Canadian Citizenship
tionably during the last war, and that externally it has universally been recognized as such for a long time. It is a pity therefore that internally, in the minds of its own inhabitants, Canada should be denied its own independence. It is regrettable that there should be one man in Canada, that there should be one representative in this house, who should belittle his country and lack the necessary confidence in it to pronounce it sovereign and give it the necessary attributes to make it such.
In a recent editorial, Saturday Night of Toronto recognized the following principle: it is a good one to apply:
It would be far better to admit frankly that we have a Canadian citizenship, which is not the citizenship of the British empire or of the United Kingdom; that we admit to this citizenship those whom we wish to and exclude all of those whom we don't, and that we regard the whole question as our business and our business alone. We should then, it may be hoped, begin to attach some importance to this Canadian citizenship and to desire to have it respected not only by other nations, but by our own lesser authorities.
This desire for respect should dictate our action. We are unfortunately lacking in it.
There need be no doubt-
Suggests Clokie in the book already cited- -that the people of Canada generally possess the feeling of separateness from the rest of the world. They are conscious of being distinct from, though in varying degrees akin to the peoples of the British isles, France and the United States of America. This separateness is the product of political separation. Canada is a term of political geography and Canadian nationalism is derived from political concepts. There is neither common language, religion, race nor prospect of establishing these.
He goes on:
The preliminary difficulty with Canadian nationalism lies in the attempt to create a nation without being able to establish homogeneity.
Do the people of Canada think of themselves as a distinct people? It is hard to answer. There exist, definitely. British sentiments in some of the English-speaking Canadians, separatism in the mind of some French-speaking Canadians-cultural and economic Americanization to which all Canada but especially Englishspeaking Canada is exposed. The Canadian nation is not indestructible as the Swiss. Its continued existence has been largely experimental and its future depends chiefly on the capacity to tolerate marked dissimilarities and yet cultivate mutual interests and loyalties.
Why is it impossible for us to imitate Brazil, whose inhabitants, Zweig tells us in his famous book, "Bresil, Terre d'Avenir":
-rival each other in one ambition-that of erasing all particularism and of becoming, as completely and as rapidly as possible, true Brazilians-melted in a new nation. This systematic fusion, of national or racial closed
groups, closed primarily to combat each other, has considerably facilitated the creation of a national and united conscience and it is astonishing to see how much the second generation already feels Brazilian.
In praising the Brazilian fusion, I am not forgetful, Mr. Speaker, of the opinion expressed by Sir George Etienne Cartier in presenting the confederation act. He said then that the fusion of the races in Canada into one was an impossibility, and that there was no power on earth capable of making us lose our language and be renegades to our faith. What was true in 1867 is truer to-day; I am'glad to note that Cartier was right and that our French language and our Catholic faith are to-day stronger than they were in his days. Roman Catholics constitute 43-34 per cent of our Canadian population, and Canadians of French descent represent the biggest individual source of our "inhabitants," having contributed 30-27 per cent thereof in contrast to 25-80 -per cent of English, 12-20 per cent of Scotch descent, 11-02 per cent of Irish origin.
There are, however, factors other than race and religion whereby all groups could be melted together and be brought much closer one to the other. One of these factors is our Canadian history, which should and could be written and taught in such a way as to make all Canadians devoted to Canada, proud of their country. The various elements of the Canadian population should not be made foes of one another at an age when they are unable fully to appreciate by themselves the consequences of their regrettably hostile acts or thoughts towards each other.	*
Everything should be studied and a plan laid down that would have the result of producing closeness of patriotic ideas, thoughts and purposes. There are other countries where languages and religions are dissimilar and yet where patriotism is not different. Why is it impossible for Canada to imitate Switzerland, where men of three very different and distinct origins and mentalities have melted themselves together to create a new and independent state, a concrete and distinctive entity?
Everybody knows, as Edwin Muller expressed it, that:
The Swiss have no racial unity, no common language; they differ in religion and culture; they are German, French and Italian. But they have one thing in common-democracy. The Ger-man-Swiss dairy farmer of Appenzell may not speak the same language as the French-Swiss factory worker of Geneva, yet they understand each other. The cantons remain separate and individual, but under their motto, "One for all and all for one." they have formed a nation whose unity has withstood the most violent strains.
World war I was a severe test for this union of free men. In 1914 the German-
*>94
Canadian Citizenship

speaking Swiss felt themselves close to Germany, had shared its literature and culture. The French cantons were ardently pro-French and pro-ally. When it came to the test, the loyalty of German-Swiss and French-Swiss to their union was more binding than any other loyalties. Came world war II, and Switzerland was soon an island in a sea of triumphant-nazism. But this time there were no divided sympathies. All Switzerland was anti-nazi, the German. Swiss probably the most anti. The nazis then endeavoured by all imaginable means to promote "the pure race" complex. Hitler and his henchmen were making every effort, throughout the world and especially in Switzerland, to group all German-blooded populations. The German Swiss remained faithful to their own country; the Italian Swiss refused to answer the call of their fascist cousins, and the French Swiss forgot that he was French and remained a Swiss. Altogether, as one, they were neutral and ready to fight any enemy of Switzerland that dared lay a foot on its territory, whether that foe might be German, Italian or French. This is what I call true citizenship.
Why cannot Canada operate in the same way? Why cannot Canadians be Canadians -as Swiss are Swiss or as Brazilians are Brazilians? Differences of religion, race, language, are not worse here than they are, [DOT]or were, over there, or in Spain, Greece, Italy. Poland, Russia. France, or Great Britain.
We have heard a great- deal, Mr. Speaker, about a "bifocal" army and the harm this army is supposed to have caused to the unity *of the country. This harm is infinitesimal compared to that caused by the bifocal mentality of certain self-styled Canadians. Bifocal mentality

there is the reason for our incapacity to create a really distinctive nation. Some residents of Canada are Canadians only in part. Primarily, they are British, French, German, Italian, Scottish, Irish. Nothing apparently can take away the hyphen Between their country of origin and their country of residence. They are, and apparently must remain, British-Canadian, French-Canadian, et cetera. Canada for some is a transient place which will be left behind as .soon as fortune has been made therein. Whether it be London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, or any other place, numerous are those whose minds wander through the streets of a foreign city which they consider the ideal place in which to spend a quiet and well earned old age. They are Canadians in name; in soul they are English, French, German, et cetera.
The bill now before the house will not alter this fact. What we need is a law which will change this bifocal mentality, which will
iMr. llinfret.l
create patriotism, non-existent at the present time. It is fine to have a Canadian flag or a Canadian anthem, but I am not of those who think that these external signs will do much to promote patriotism. Patriotism has to come first and to be exteriorized by a flag or an anthem. They have a meaning, inasmuch as they have a soul. Without patriotism, a flag is a meaningless piece of cloth, and an anthem is an empty song. Not that I disapprove, Mr. Speaker, of the resolution presented to create a distinctive flag. I do most heartily approve of it, because there are in Canada, and they form the majority, true Canadians who have no other country than Canada, who have Canadian souls. For them, the flag will be the, symbol and the anthem will be the call of their nation. And for them, I hope, both the flag and the anthem will be wholly, exclusively and conclusively Canadian.
I do not wish to throw discredit upon, or to be disrespectful of, any culture having contributed' to the education of a single Canadian. I admire the Anglo-Saxon culture; it has many good points. I am proud of the French and Latin cultures; they also have many excellent qualities. But, I say, let us extract from the English and French characteristics and from any other culture, whatever is good in them, to achieve a distinctive, Canadian mentality-remembering, Mr. Speaker, that in order to form one big Canadian family we must include not only the French, the English, but all other nationalities which together represented, in 1941, twenty per cent of our population.
It ,is good sometimes to look at population statistics and to learn the lessons that flow therefrom. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians of other than British stock represent a majority in our country. It is well worth noting that whereas in 1871 the composite percentage of the French-English groups was ninety-two per cent of the total population, in 1941. it represented only eighty per cent. It is clear from these figures that more and more we must think in terms of other than French and English elements and take into consideration the demands, ideologies, antecedents and history of the other increasing twenty per cent and not restrict ourselves to British heritage, as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested in his speech of April 2, page 514 of Hansard, where he said:
Canada to me means ... a citizenship which maintains in this part of North America the highest heritage of British peoples every where in the world.

Canadian Citizenship
* We must include everybody. In th,e same line of thinking, it is well to consider that whereas in 1871 only 2-64 per cent of our population was foreign bom; in 1941 it was 8-82 per cent, more than three times as much.
These figures will be sufficient to show that it is important and urgent that something be *done to promote true Canadianism, to absorb this influx and to transform it in terms of Canadian culture. The post-war period will bring with it thousands and millions of demands for settlement in Canada; let us not be found sleeping, and let us not be found wanting. These immigrants must be made to be Canadians both in name and in soul; they must be made to recognize that this is their sole country, and that by asking to be made part of it they become real Canadians.
I am at ease, Mr. Speaker, in talking about true Canadians, because I feel that I am a true Canadian. The majority of the population of the province of Quebec feel that we are the true settlers of this country. Is not this complete attachment to the soil true' patriotism? The people of Quebec refer to themselves as "Canayens" and to representatives of other groups as "les Anglais". And mind you, Mr. Speaker, there is a justification for such an attitude. Their ancestors felt, and they to-day feel, that this country is theirs. If .we look back at history, at the text of the capitulation of Quebec, we note a marked distinction between the terms used to qualify the inhabitants of the country and the French garrison. The difference is still more marked in the text of the capitulation of Montreal, which differentiates between the French, the Canadians and the Acadians. The Canadians, ancestors of practically all our Quebecers of to-day, who had been at that time established in Canada for three, four or five generations, some who had settled there over one hundred years previously, felt really at home here in Canada. They were referred to by the representatives of both the British and French crown as "the Canadians."
The descendants of these Canadians of 1760 

they total some 3.500,000 to-day-are scattered all over Canada. They have remained truly Canadians and, to this day, they still are and feel Canadians. They could have returned to France had they so desired, but they preferred staying here, because they had no other country, no other home than that of America. These Canadians in 1946 figure that the\', or at least their ancestors, have made a positive act of Canadianism, and they fail to see how and when the British subjects of English descent residing in Canada have done the same.
Under the statutes as they are, Mr. Speaker, is it not true that a British subject, born in any part of the British commonwealth, is not obliged to do anything in order to possess the plenitude of Canadian rights? He does not have to make a formal act of acceptance of Canadianism in the same manner as all other immigrants have to do. He does not have to take an oath of allegiance to our king, because the oath he has given to his king is deemed sufficient. Now, I may appear to repeat myself, but my king and the British king are not legally the same; they are not the same entity. And this the statute of Westminster implicitly recognizes. I have as much respect for and submission to my king as the inhabitant of Great Britain has for his; and I insist that, upon coming to my country, upon settling in the territory of my king, everyone should take an oath of allegiance to the king of Canada, and forego his submission to the king of Great Britain.
This may seem drastic, Mr. Speaker, but is it not the procedure that immigrants from all countries are asked to follow? They must renounce their former allegiance if they are to be made subjects of my king. Now, if Canada is a distinct nation, a different state, would it not be logical to say that to act differently, to allow anybody to owe allegiance to another but its king, constitutes an act of disrespect or disloyalty to the head of the country, to the king who rules Canada, to George VI. King of Canada?
The British commonwealth has been variously defined. I like the definition given by Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia university: "A federal relationship which consists in loyalty and devotion to a person who is the symbol of unity." The symbol of unity for the commonwealth is His Majesty the King, George VI, to whom loyalty and devotion are due. He represents the trait d'union between the various nations of the British family. He is a multi-entity, who, in his various capacities, advised by his different governments, reaches his multitudinous subjects of "divers appellations." But I say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as Canada is concerned we must look to only one symbol, to the king of Canada.
This affirmation is not to be interpreted as a cry for secession or separatism, because it is not. I do not wish Canada to cut away from the British commonwealth of nations, because I believe that it is in the real interest of Canada and of the other sister nations to continue in this association. But I want to emphasize that our present citizenship status does not correspond to the importance Canada
Canadian Citizenship


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I am sure quite unintenionally, has misinterpreted what I said last evening. I am all for a stronger Canada and a stronger empire.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am glad to hear that, because I am for it too.


Howard Charles Green: And for a more united
Canada.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We are both in accord, then. I have already referred to the absence of formal acts of Canadianism performed by British-born coming to Canada. I cannot help but think, Mr. Speaker, that the different treatment accorded to these as against the other immigrants has something to do with the lack of complete Canadian unity, and this, in my opinion, is a complete answer to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the question. In the United States of America all immigrants, without exception, have to take out papers in order to become American citizens. All are treated alike, and when they do have their papers they all feel that they are Americans; they are proud to be called Americans and to be Americans without any hyphens. Here in Canada it is different; only certain of the immigrants are obliged by law to apply for citizenship, and when the naturalization certificates are issued to them the petitioners are made citizens of another country or, according to another prevailing view, not of a country in particular but of a group of independent states. Would it not be more

decisive, if we wish them to become true Canadians, to make them Canadians, and to give them a true Canadian status?
There are, of course, fanatics who will gasp at these various propositions of mine. I am not concerned, because those fanatics are not Canadians; they are an3'thing but Canadians. We have some in the province of Quebec, who will not see further than their provincial noses. They are the separatists, the nationalists. The result of the last election shows the extent of their weight in the voter's mind. I know them well; their provincial leader is the representative of part of my constituency of Outremont in the legislature of Quebec. I visited that portion of my county and I vehemently attacked the narrow point of view of those partisans of a parochial nationalism. I am against all narrow and petty nationalism, Mr. Speaker, whatever its origin. In the last campaign I insisted upon telling all my electors of Outremont that I despised short-sighted nationalism, and, in order to be certain that interested parties would understand, I condemned French nationalism in the French section, English or Irish nationalism in the English and Irish section, and Jewish nationalism in the Jewish community. I told them that my nationalism was not a regional one. In my manifesto I made one single request; a really Canadian vote and the opportunity of assuring the Prime Minister of the country of the true Canadian feeling of the electors of Outremont. This mandate I have received by an overwhelming majority, and this mandate I am carrying out to-day.
There exists, Mr. Speaker, outside of my province another peculiar, narrow nationalism. Its difference from that of my province resides in the fact that it is the exact opposite, which does not make it more Canadian. The proponents of this narrow view are convinced that they are expressing the view of- the majority of the people of Canada, which makes it more dangerous. The sooner these gentlemen realize that they have not a monopoly of patriotism, that they make a radical mistake about the meaning of the word Canadianism, and that they represent only extremists, the better it will be for the country. They are presumably the descendants of some British subjects coming from New England, not from Britain, whom Governor Murray, in January, 1764, tagged the "most inveterate fanatics"; like their forefathers, they would seem tothink themselves superior in rank and fortune to the soldier and the Canadians, as they are pleased to deem the first, voluntary, and the other, "born slaves"

Canadian Citizenship
These were Murray's own words, in January, 1764, when referring to merchants who had then resorted to this country. Let there be no mistake. They are not superior, and Canadians are not slaves.
I have mentioned two groups of extremists; both of them refuse to recognize' the fact that Canada is and must remain a bilingual and bicultural country. However, as far as recognizing the bilingual principle, one portion of the population has contributed to a much greater extent to the fulfilment of our goal. Of the total of 1,474,000 who could speak both French and English in 1941, some 1.152,713 were of French origin, whereas only 216,385 were of British Isles races. Percentagewise, it is 78 per cent of total in the first instance, and only 14 per cent in the other. Figured in percentage of the respective groups, it shows that 33 per cent or one-third of the French descent population were bilingual in 1941, whereas only 3-7 per cent of the British Isles descendants could speak both French and English.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: My purpose in bringing these figures to the attention of the house is to emphasize the effort made by the Frenchspeaking population to understand its Englishspeaking compatriots and the lack of cooperation given in the other direction. Unilinguism, whether it comes from recognized French or English-speaking portions of the country, will not help union and understanding between the two big races. ,
Mr. Herbert Lank, vice-president of Canadian Industries Limited, born in Great Britain, recently delivered an address in French before the annual congress of the association of the commercial science graduates of the school of higher studies of the university of Montreal. He said:
(Translation):
I like your language and I am proud to be able to speak it. My knowledge of French, however limited it may be, has opened for me the door to your culture and your civilization, which are unfortunately beyond the reach of all too many English-speaking people, while your knowledge of English makes it easier for you to become acquainted with our culture and our civilization. Let us use our respective languages, which are priceless instruments for the purpose of carrying out beneficial exchanges, since the only result can be, on both sides, a higher civilization and culture.
(Text) :
I agree with Mr. Lank, and, with him, I regret that the desire to interchange studies
of cultures and civilization has been unfortunately one-sided, with the French element providing most endeavours and the Englishspeaking practically none.
I have referred to extremists or fanatics. Naturally they are the most prolific in articles and speeches. They speak the loudest, and they are given the most space in certain newspapers and elsewhere. Care should be exercised to prevent utterances unimportant and insignificant in one part of the country from being given undue publicity and thereby being exaggerated, or given credence to, in other parts of the country.
Fortunately for Canada, between the two poles of extreme thoughts that I have indicated lie the big majority of my fellow countrymen, those who have only one country, bounded by the Atlantic on one side and by the Pacific on the other; those who wish to make of Canada, of the whole of Canada, a true, a strong nation. They must unite to fight reactionary groups.
Leaving the anti-Canadians, pro any other country, whichever it might be, to their bifocal mentality, let those in favour of Canada-as a country-as a nation, as a sovereign state, not only wish for the realization of their ambition, but do something about it.
Let us follow the example set by 1'Abbe Maheux, and teach to all Canadians that Canada, in its entirety, is a real entity, a glorious reality, an object worth while cherishing. We must convince them that their hearts are sufficiently big to contain the love of their family, of their town, of their religion, of their province, and above all, of the whole of Canada.
We must teach to all Canadians that their country, as a matter of fact and reality, is a bicultural, bilingual one, that, in order for one section of the country to understand the other it is necessary to learn both languages and cultures. We must teach a common history of Canada, as a means of avoiding errors and horrors of the past, and as an inspiration for the accomplishment of what is advantageous to the homeland.
Finally, we must teach to all Canadians, a patriotism and a civism that will give one a proper sense of his responsibilities towards his country, whereby he will have more respect for his duty than for his privileges.
With these purposes in mind, the naturalization or citizenship act should be amended in such a way as to make us the Canadian subjects of His Majesty George VI, instead of maintaining directly or indirectly the anomalous and paradoxical appellation of Cana-dian-British subjects.
Canadian Citizenship

The election act should also be changed to grant voting rights only to, and restrict eligibility to, Canadian subjects. This would guarantee that no foreign-minded individual would sit in the House of Commons.
What I claim for Canada is a national synthesis, the preservation of the immeasurable wealth that could be accumulated by the contact of the many races and inherited from the various national cultures belong to Canada's people.
I want Canada for Canadians and Canadians for Canada. With the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, "I desire to see the largest possible measure of the same ability to unite different religious groups in the support of a single national policy."
I would regret a continued lack of collaboration on the part of certain elements of the population, because in the words of Gabriel Jaray-
(Translation):
A divided Canada, instead of making the weight of her power felt in the sphere of world affairs and playing therein the part of an arbitrator, will find it difficult to maintain true independence, drawn along as she will he to one side or the other by outside pressures and internal oscillations.
(Text) :


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: 
Mr. KNIGHT:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Thomas Langton Church: I would rather the hon.
member take up his own time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is just a question.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. member cannot
interrupt without my consent. He will have plenty of opportunity to discuss this matter.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I can only ask the hon. member if he will permit a question.


Thomas Langton Church: I am only stating my own view's and speak what I believe to be the truth. The hon. gentleman can state his views later. I am not complaining about his views. He can have his views as far as I am concerned, and I do not care what his views are.
I am speaking as a Canadian born in this country. I am a Canadian, but I also am a British subject. They are both the same and always have been. The minister must surely
Canadian Citizenship

be the greatest discoverer since Jacques Cartier and John and Sebastien Cabot because he has discovery that a Canadian citizen is a British subject. A Canadian citizen has always been a British subject.
Who is asking for this bill? We do not know. If the government put the bill through they will live to regret it. It may satisfy some people in the country, but I would point out that we all owe allegiance to one sovereign and one empire. British citizenship is the greatest thing in the world.
Just look at this bill. It says that a person born in Hamilton or St. Catharines of Canadian parents is a British citizen. Everyone knows that without being told. We have all been Canadians and British subjects, ever since the treaty of Paris. This bill should be sent to the archives-earth to earth, dust to dust and ashes to ashes, in the sure and certain hope that it will never be resurrected. It can only cause the widest division amongst the people of this country when unity is what is wanted at this time. We were Canadians before. We were Canadians and British in the war of 1783, when our splendid citizens from Quebec did so much, in the war of 1812, the Northwest rebellion, the South African war, and the two other wars in our generation.
The bill provides that a British subject not previously resident in Canada will have to live in Canada for five years before becoming a Canadian. Aliens who fought against us in this war are treated the same as those men of other dominions who served in the forces with us; before they will be eligible to become Canadian citizens they must live here five years. The bill requires a British subject not formerly resident here to go through the same formalities as an alien to become a Canadian subject.
This is, in my opinion, one of the most untimely, un-needed, mischievous bills introduced into this parliament for a long time. It is separatism in excelsis. It will cause widespread disunity and resentment. It is a glori-ficatipn of one class at the expense of another, something which should1 never be allowed to happen; it is political first, last and all the time. Why is it put forward at a time like this? In my opinion-and I have read a number of speeches made throughout Canada during the last election-it grows out of the last two elections; it is just window-dressing, there is a whole lot of shadowjboxing in it, and it is of the nature of vote-hunting propaganda. It is strange that some of those outside this house who are supporting this bill seem to favour a republic in Canada similar to what South Africa and Eire want,

In my opinion this bill should not have been introduced at the present time. Section 25 speaks of a Canadian citizen as a British subject. Who ever said he was not? I am surprised that any minister from Ontario would introduce such a measure into the house. The bill states that people born in Canada or people from Great Britain already in Canada shall be known as Canadians. I never knew that to be questioned before. I am a Canadian and also a British subject; they are both the same, and we need no bill like this to make them so. To be able to say, "I am a British subject," means something, because if you were a British subject on the seas and produced a British passport, it guaranteed a safe journey to your journey's end. British supremacy on the seas saved the world in four centuries-those of Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and twice in our genration against Germany. Are we to lose all this now for the sake of a meaningless bill?
When St. Paul was before the centurion he said to him, "I am a Roman citizen," The episode is told in the book of Acts, chapters 22 to 24. He was then sent to the chief captain, and also to the high priest; afterwards he was brought before the security council, or t'he council of state, as they called it in those days. When they heard him they took him into the great hall, and when he appealed to Caesar they sent him over to Rome. In those days to say, "I am a Roman citizen," meant something. I say these things in no spirit of exclusiveness. I know a large number of the foreign-born in Toronto, and they are among our best and most distinguished citizens; I am anxious that they Shall have fair treatment in connection with all our future policies; for I recognize, while I am a member of the house, no racial or religious considerations; such things are out of place in the House of Commons.
A grave warning has been issued in relation to the principles of a bill of this kind. It is contained in an address by the ex-Prime Minister of Canada, Viscount Bennett, and will be found, I believe, in the library. It was delivered by Viscount Bennett to the Royal Society of Arts on June 3, 1942. In a foreword prepared by Mr. Patrick Donner, one of the leading and ablest members of the British House of Commons, it is stated that Viscount Bennett gave
... a grave warning that the problem of finding machinery to secure a common foreign policy for the British empire is still unsolved . . . He begins with a very full statement of the constituent parts of the empire-dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandated territories, et cetera; goes on to trace the development of domjniou status and gives the history of the imperial conference. He emphasizes the large

Canadian Citizenship
number of subsidiary empire conferences on such matters as copyright, patents, forestry, education, cables and wireless communication, and so forth, but comes back to the inadequacy of the means for securing a common foreign policy. Speaking of the ten years prior to 1942, he observes:
"True, there have been consultation and discussion on foreign policy, but such policy has been the policy of the United Kingdom, and while generally speaking the dominions have been advised and consulted, circumstances made it almost impossible for them to do other than agree."
The foreword continues:
Lord Bennett argues that nothing in the Statute of Westminster alters the law made clear in the case of Williams v. Howarth (reported 1905) that there is only one king ruling over the empire and not a separate king for each dominion. He accordingly makes it clear that in his view the neutrality of Eire is unconstitutional and would otherwise potentially imply "an obviously impossible and ridiculous situation." He asks pertinently: "Can the legations of warring enemies of the British commonwealth of nations be legally or honourably maintained within the territory of that commonwealth?"
The ease cited by Viscount Bennett is relevant to the matters now under discussion.
This bill is going to cause a lot of trouble.
I repeat, British subjects coming from other parts of the empire, including the mother country, are to be treated as though they were outsiders and aliens; and the impression has gone abroad in the empire, and, indeed, in France as well, that the people who supplied our two great racial stocks are not wanted here, and that if they try to get in ' they will have to line up at immigration offices and take their chance and reside here for a long time before they can become citizens or are allowed to vote.
The first schedule to the bill, may I point out, refers to some countries which are not in the British empire at the present time. In one, Eire, a republic has been set up, one of the so-called dominions. In the schedule it is called "Ireland"; it is not that at all. The schedule speaks of "the United Kingdom". It should be "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and "Eire" should be substituted for Ireland, for Eire is not a dominion; it has already set up a republic.
I do not know that I need say anything further. I have received a number of protests against this bill. I tell you this, regarding citizenship of the empire, that unless the dominions hang together they are going to hang separately, because none of them is capable of "going it alone", either in respect of citizenship or any other matter, and Canada
will have little to say at the peace table. I believe in what Mr. Churchill said at Fulton, Missouri:
Let no man underrate the abiding power of the British, empire and commonwealth. Because you see forty-six millions on our island harassed about their food supply, or because we have difficulty restarting our industries and export trade after six years of passionate war effort, do not suppose that we shall not come through these dark years of privation as we have come through the glorious years of agony, or that half a century from now you will not see seventy or eighty millions of Britons spread about the world and united in defence of our traditions, our way of life and of the world causes you and we espouse.
I quote also from Lieutenant-General Montgomery:
We must maintain a strong and united British empire. The empire has great responsibilities. Much of the world looks to us to give a lead in solving the many problems that lie ahead. We must give that lead, and we must shoulder these responsibilities. To do this we must always be strong so that never again can the tyrant consider that he can safely twist the lion's tail. Xo tyrant can ignore a strong British empire which stands for freedom and justice.
In conclusion, let me say simply this. I have been in this house for a great many years and during all that time I have tried to speak what I believe to be the truth temperately and moderately. I am opposed to this bill. It is not needed at present. While I have great respect for my hon. friends to the left, I suggest that there are three views, the right view, your own view and we must consider and respect the other fellow's views, and I have always tried to follow that principle. One must be interested not only in his own ideas but in the views of others, and must endeavour to find what the right views are. I believe I have expressed the views of a very large number of the Canadian people regarding this bill. Even if we wanted this bill, this is the wrong time to introduce it, because it will cause disunity and will satisfy no one. It is meaningless and it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforce it. Elaborate machinery will have to be set up and already our judges are overburdened with work, with divorce cases and other litigation. Now we are going to pass an act requiring every citizen to register before he can be regarded as a citizen. In my opinion it will lead to endless confusion and before long the government will regret that it ever had anything to do with it.


Mr. ROCH PINARD (Chambly-Rouville):: The bill which we have to study and examine is one which, in my opinion, will engage the attention not only of this country, not only of neighbouring countries such as the United States, but of all other countries to which we
Canadian Citizenship

are bound by ties either political, diplomatic or commercial. We are considering a bill which is extremely important. Indeed, I would call it a halting place in the life of the Canadian nation.
I	wish to comment briefly on the bill and to refer to some of the principles involved. Then ft would be useful, I think, to analyse the effects of the bill on our country and on our relations with other nations. This I shall try to do, and then I shall attempt to draw certain conclusions or lessons from the bill, having regard to the future of Canada.
The history and the origin of the bill are particularly interesting. Since it is legislation dealing with Canadian citizenship it will be necessary, if we are to study it properly, to look at its sources and for that purpose to go back to the birth of the country. That, however, I do not intend to do. It would not be of any benefit whatever in the purely practical study which I wish to undertake.
To give a rapid summary of the matter I would say this. During the French regime there obviously was no law on Canadian citizenship. Canada was then a French colony; all French people who came to settje and establish themselves here were French citizens and remained such, and their children born in Canada remained French subjects. When this country was conquered by Great Britain it became simply a colony of the British crown and did not constitute a separate country. It formed a single British territory, part of which became later the United States of America, with the exception of one portion, Louisiana, which remained French until 1803 when it was sold to the United States by the French.
In 1783 the United States of America was formed and in 1812 the frontiers between the United States and Canada were fixed by special treaty. During all that period our country enacted no law relating to Canadian nationality, the initiative being left entirely to the mother country, and it is only in 1814 that one can find traces of the first Canadian legislation relating to nationality. However, those first laws enacted by Canada had only local scope and influence. In 1867 Canada became a dominion by virtue of the British North America Act and retained for a long time all basic laws of the mother country, which it took care to approve systematically
In 1881 our country promulgated a really important law which could then clearly 'be distinguished from those enacted by the imperial parliament. That was the Naturalization Act, 23 and 24, George V, chapter 49. But it was soon discovered that this new
 -
legislation providing for local naturalization was creating serious inconveniences not only in Canada but in the other dominions. At the imperial conferences of 1907 and 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier brought these difficulties to the attention of the other dominions and sug-gesed the adoption of a uniform law on imperial naturalization. The principle was accepted by all parties and the new law was enacted at the same time by Canada and Great Britain. As a matter of fact, it was adopted first by Canada and it was adopted just a few months later by Great Britain.
In our statutes this law is known as "An act respecting British nationality, naturalization and aliens,'" and it is in substance the same as the British law, which is called "an act to consolidate and amend enactments relating to British nationality and the status of aliens." This British law is chapter 17 of the private and general acts of Great Britain. All the other dominions accepted and adopted the same legislation, but they did so only many years after the first world war. As a matter of fact, Ireland never adopted such legislation. Ireland enacted its own constitution in 1935. Before this date, in 1914, Canada promulgated in 1910, for the first time, a law mentioning the words "Canadian citizenship." It is the act respecting immigration. That special law, frequently amended, has become chapter 93 of our revised statutes, and one can still find in it the same definition of "Canadian citizen" as in the previous law which I have mentioned, the . law of 1910.
This' law on immigration is still in force to-day. I stated a moment ago that in 1914 our country was the first among all the nations of the commonwealth, including Great Britain, to adopt the imperial law of naturalization, which was later ratified .by all the other dominions of the commonwealth, except Ireland. Then, until 1921, there was no important legislation affecting nationality or citizenship in Canada enacted by our parliament. In 1921 our country enacted the Canadian Nationals Act, which is to be repealed by the present bill.
This act was adopted, as mentioned by the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin), on the occasion of the selection of judges to represent Canada at the permanent court of international justice. It seemed to be necessary, and I think rightly so, to distinguish those judges from those who were appointed by Great Britain and those who were appointed by the other dominions. I submit that it was the first time a real distinction was ever made by our parliament between the subjects

Canadian Citizenship
[DOT]of Great Britain, the other dominions and those of Canada. Until then there was only one British subject. By that new legislation, the Canadian Nationals Act, a British subject [DOT]who is at the same time called a Canadian national, is created. The question then arose whether that new legislation did not have the effect of provoking the creation of a double nationality for all the nationals of the dominions of the British commonwealth, for I must add that all the other dominions adopted a law similar to that of the Canadian Nationals Act. As I said, the question arose as to whether or not this did not have the effect of provoking double nationality.
This interesting legal question was studied very carefully and was dealt with by many authorities on constitutional law. It was dealt with and capably discussed by my former legal partner, Mr. Chateau guay Perrault, in his book "Nationality", published in 1939. This book was published after Mr. Perrault obtained a doctorate of law from the university of Montreal based on a thesis he had written. I had the great pleasure of attending the event. In this book Mr. Perrault ably discussed these questions, and he came to the conclusion that this unusual legislation cannot effect a division of nationality, but is, as he calls it, rather the qualification of a new nationality. In other words, the Canadian person of 1921 when this Canadian Nationals Act was adopted was not acquiring a second nationality; he was only adding a new quality to his nationality as a British subject by becoming a British subject of Canadian national denomination. Such was not the case with the people of the Irish Free State because they never adopted the imperial naturalization act. One might think that as far as Ireland is concerned they actually acquired a double nationality, at least so far as the British commonwealth is concerned.
From 1921 until the present time Canada has not adopted any other law affecting nationality, except in 1937 when special legislation was enacted to prevent Canadians from enrolling in the Spanish war. In that act respecting foreign enlistment, chapter 32, I George VI, 1937, a distinction was made between a British subject and a Canadian national. Such in short is the history of this legislation and the sources of bill No. 7, which I shall now study briefly.
The bill is entitled, "An act respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status [DOT]of aliens", and is to be known as the Canadian Citizenship Act. One immediately realizes, Mr. Speaker, that Canada breaks the unity of legislation on nationality in the British commonwealth, and that our country
is. swerving away from the beaten path to proclaim its own independence, citizenship amongst other things. Until now in the whole British commonwealth the legislation was uniform, for everywhere the imperial law of 1914 had been adopted except in the Irish Free Sthte. It is my humble opinion that so far as that particular country is concerned Ireland can be no longer considered a dominion, because in 1934 it adopted its own constitution by which it declared that Ireland is a sovereign, independent and democratic state.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was 1935.


Roch Pinard: Yes. It is a fait accompli. As far as international law is concerned, a situation of fact soon becomes a situation of law. I think it would be interesting to follow in the future the development of that country from the constitutional point of view.
It is now Canada's policy to proclaim its own distinct nationality and citizenship. I said a moment ago that Canada was breaking the unity of legislation in the British commonwealth. It does so first my repealing the Naturalization Act of 1914 by a special section of the bill, and, second, by setting aside the Canadian Nationals Act. There is another section of the bill which is important, and the principle which it contains is categorical. A Canadian citizen is a British subject; but a British subject is not necessarily a Canadian citizen. On this point I must say I was very much impressed with the argument of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke), an argument which he succeeded in expounding clearly in spite of numerous interruptions. The hon. member has voiced the opinion that the special provision of the bill which enacts that a Canadian citizen is a British subject is ultra vires, because in our legislation we have no right to say who is a British subject. I concur in his conclusions that this special section should be changed, and I intended to offer the very same suggestion but for some other reason. I do not intend to discuss whether that special legislation is beyond the powers of this parliament or not, although I might say that if such a contention were true it could be said also of numerous other provisions of the bill. Moreover, the British subject was defined by parliament in the Naturalization Act, and such a definition would also have been ultra vires if, as my hon. friend contends, it is up to the British parliament alone to say who is a British subject.
My reason for voicing objections to the special section which provides that a Canadian citizen is a British subject is different, although it may be qualified as also originat-
Canadian Citizenship

ing from a legalistic mind. But when it comes to the drafting of legislation I submit that it is not being legalistic to ask from our government that the legislation under study be prepared in accordance with our constitutional rights. That is what my hon. friend contended. As far as I am concerned I do not believe that my reasons for opposing that special legislation will likewise be considered legalistic.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You mean the special section?


Roch Pinard: Yes, that special provision. After examining the present measure very carefully I have noted-and that is why I roust concur in the conclusion that this provision should foe changed-that the Naturalization Act being repealed, there is no more definition in our statutes of a British subject, no other definition having ever been given other than the one contained in paragraph (j) of section 2 of that act. There is then every reason to conclude, if in our statutes we have no definition at all of a British' subject, that this section of the present bill has no practical sense whatever. For these reasons and remembering also the suggestion which was made by the Secretary of State who has asked us to make suggestions for the drafting of this legislation, and also because I wish that my participation in this debate be somewhat constructive, I concur in the opinion. I wish to make a suggestion that has, in my view, the effect of giving a more precise and practical sense to that disposition of the present bill which provides that a Canadian citizen is a British subject.
Since this bill has for its purpose the affirmation of our sovereignty; since this legislation seems to be intended to proclaim better our identity in the British commonwealth of nations, as Canada wishes to distinguish its entity from that of the other countries of the British group, there is a very simple way to attain that aim, by simply modifying this ambiguous disposition contained in the bill.
It is useless to say that a Canadian citizen is a British subject, since nowhere in our statutes is there a definition of a British subject. I might be told that anyone knows what a British subject is, that a British subject is a subject of His Majesty the King. But, Mr. Speaker, we must also keep in mind the rights we have acquired as a result of the imperial conferences and the statute of Westminster. I hope we would not wish to enact legislation which would be retrogressive simply because it lacked the necessary clarity. We know the aim of the government is precisely to distinguish a Canadian subject of His Majesty from any

other subject of His Majesty. We know also that the purpose of this legislation is to inform the rest of the world of our sovereignty as a nation of free individuals. Finally we know that through this bill the government desires to give us a name and to define clearly, once and for all, our national status. Therefore, why should we not eliminate all ambiguities; why not clarify that section of the bill which would seek to achieve precisely that aim? By declaring that a Canadian citizen is a British subject the present bill is contradictory, in my opinion, to the status which we have thus far acquired as a nation. I am absolutely convinced that no one in this house will deny that His Majesty the King is the king of Canada. I am further convinced that no one in this country will contend that it is not to His Majesty the King of Canada that we owe our allegiance. I therefore suggest with the hon. member for Qutremont (Mr. Rinfret) to the Secretary of State, who has moved the second reading of the bill, that the ambiguous sections of this legislation be clarified, and accordingly I would recommend that it be declared in the bill that a Canadian citizen is a subject of His Majesty the King of Canada.
Some time ago I was discussing the consequences of the Canadian Nationals Act of 1921 in relation to the Naturalization Act of 1914 in so far as duality of nationality is concerned. With the adoption of the present bill I believe there can be no question of a double nationality for the Canadian people. Up to the present we have been British subjects and nationals of the Dominion of Canada; now we become Canadian citizens. We remain with only one nationality, but at least this time it will be ours, the Canadian nationality.
The other sections of the bill are proof that such a nationality will not be granted to anybody simply upon reqhest, since the conditions necessary to acquire it are strict and onerous; and I think that is well. Even the British subjects of Great Britain and the other dominions will have to submit themselves to these requirements, and that is only fair and just. I shall not undertake to discuss the conditions or the offences provided in the bill which will lead to loss of Canadian citizenship. Such prescriptions are contained in the major part of the bill; they are clear and concise, and cannot bring any confusion. In my opinion, that is the economy of this legislation which, as I said a moment ago, constitutes an important step in the life of the Canadian nation.
I wish now to define briefly the consequences and results of this important legislation. There is not the slightest doubt that by asking this house to adopt this bill the government

Canadian Citizenship
continues, with the same constancy and spirit, its progressive march forward; that it is following with the same resolution the very same policy in this country that it followed also at the imperial conferences. The opinions expressed at the imperial conferences, and the legislation following them, clearly established that the Canadian government, at least when it was represented by the party to which I belong, has always endeavoured to work with wisdom and prudence but also with firm determination toward the emancipation and independence of our great nation. Liberty and independence are two of the privileges dearest to peoples and individuals, and they also constitute basic qualities which are indispensable to the influence of a nation. Since the beginning of its already long history our country has been twice under the tutorship of two great nations which were leading the world because of their greatness and power. The descendents of those two great races still constitute a mighty portion of the actual population of the Canadian nation. Little by little, while it has grown stronger and more vigorous, our country has freed itself from those tutorships which paralysed its efforts and great enterprises.
Canada did not break away with violence from the tutorship of Great Britain; it simply left that protection as the fruit falls from the branch when it is ripened. This right to sovereignty was gained by Canada gradually, and it has just been consecrated by the effort our country has put forth to safeguard that civilization to which it wanted to belong and which it wanted to protect and defend. That right Canada may affirm with pride in the sacrifice of all those Canadians who fought; it may proclaim it with honour on the graves of those of her sons who died to defend it.
I am proud that our government has done so much to prove not only to Canadians themselves but to the world at large that today our country is sufficiently great and powerful to take care of its own national destinies. By asking our people to adopt this bill Canada is going forward with vision and certainty toward its progress and greatness. Thanks to the Canadian government, a new citizen is born in the world. That citizen is now very well known and regarded. That citizen is inferior to no other because of the greatness of his origins and the pureness of his blood. That citizen is already great, and has proved to be noble and generous. He will be received everywhere in the world, when he shows his new credentials and passport, with great admiration and respect. I heard the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Cfruneh) say it has meant a great deal to say
that we are British subjects, but I still maintain that it is also a great thing to be able to say that we are Canadian citizens. The hon. member also said that St. Paul one day declared, "I am a Roman citizen." I do not want to get in wrong with the hon. gentleman, but I would remind him that what St. Paul said was, "Civis Romanus sum."


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was it Paul or St. Paul?


Roch Pinard: I think they are both accepted as St. Paul. How many Canadians, Mr. Speaker, dreamed of that memorable day when we would acquire our Canadian citizenship; and that day has finally come, thanks to this government. , The proclamation of our Rationality is a definite and peremptory affirmation of our complete autonomy.
But, Mr. Speaker, to such a proclamation gerat privileges are attached, of which the greatest undoubtedly is that of allowing our country to enter international councils as a distinct and free entity. To those great privileges are attached serious and important corresponding tasks whose consequences cannot be ignored either by those who govern or by the people at large. Since the government has decided to create Canadian nationality and citizenship, it is to be hoped that it will always realize the value and price of such a title and privilege and impress it upon others who may wish to acquire it. Those who govern this country should always be very carefid and upon their guard not to award too generously and without the necessary. discretion and discernment such a privilege, which is the greatest any country can offer. To-day this warning becomes of greater significance, in view of recent events which caused the creation of a royal commission to investigate the activities of certain agents who are charged with having given secret information to a foreign power. Many of those were people who were admitted to Canada and who were not British subjects by origin. In the near future a great number of persons will be knocking at our doors asking the right to come in, the right to live with us and the right to acquire.our nationality. It is the duty of this government to be >
cautious and circumspect, and even parsimonious, in awarding this precious privilege.
The example of certain European countries must be our guide. I could recall the errors of France who was too generous and too hospitable, who was receiving with open arms all those who were asking for refuge and assistance and who was giving them the right of citizenship without always going through the necessary investigations and inquiries.
Canadian Citizenship

Since our government knows the value of the title it confers in giving Canadian citizenship, it should always be assured and convinced that the person asking for it deserves such a privilege and that he will become a real Canadian valuable to the country and to the community at large.
The Department of Justice in the United States has understood the importance of that question and it decided some time ago to launch a campaign of national education on American citizenship. In a pamphlet published by that department in 1943, entitled, "Introduction to citizenship education," I find these important remarks which should be a warning to all Canadians:
And so, in the United States of America, it must be good-bye to the old, easy days when the assimilation of those who came to us was scarcely even recognized as a problem. Not that we shall seek to make it hard to become an American citizen. God forbid that we should ever place needless formalities or raise artificial barriers before men who love our way of life and seek to share it fully! But safety for our nation in a dangerous world and safety for the alien within our borders demand alike a humane, liberal, carefully thought-through approach to the problem. In free America we dare not cut any man off from the goals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" merely because he lacks certain "papers'; but just as surely, we dare not permit any man to endanger our free America.
I come now to the chief point of this speech, to the very reason why I decided to participate in this debate. I ask our government to form and appoint a special committee to study the problems resulting from our new nationality and from the creation and establishment of Canadian citizenship. Such a committee would have a definite aim and a clear purpose.
It would accept the great task of defining for the general benefit of the whole nation, and also for all strangers who will happen to acquire our nationality, the privileges and rights, the obligations and responsibilities; in other words, it would clearly determine the fundamentals of Canadian citizenship. Every Canadian who loves his country and who wishes to see it grow and prosper, would be glad to have a clear, national definition of Canada's ideals and aspirations.
I desire to add that such a committee formed by a group of Canadians of good will could do a useful and practical job. That would be to summarize, with its report in a special book, the conclusions arrived at; such a book would state in brief the principles of Canadian citizenship and would become the code of Canadian citizenship.

I strongly urge my government to take that great and patriotic initiative for the best interests of our country. After all, it seems to me that it is the task of this parliament clearly to define for the future, and in the light of the national situation, the rights and obligations of the newly-born Canadian citizen.
It is obvious now that to-day the people of Canada understand all the advantages and privileges to be derived by living in this fair land of Canada according to a single Canadian ideal. In proclaiming in Canada, in the parliament of the nation, the existence of the Canadian citizen, the government is giving to all the inhabitants of this country wherever they come from or of whatever race, creed or religion, solemn and precious advice. It is asking each and everyone of us not to think any more in narrow and provincial terms; it is demanding that we all elevate our minds and thoughts, and be glorified in acquiring the rights of a citizen; it is asking all Canadians to abandon any restricted and purely racial ideals; it is urging everyone of us to be nothing but real Canadians.
From a book entitled, "For education in a sovereign country," published in 1945 in Ottawa and written by Reverend Father George Simard, I wish to read these few lines:
By examining that question carefully, everything in our country is settled as depending upon 1760, and narrow forms of nationalism are confronting each other since 150 years without the Canadians having yet succeeded in discovering a real formula in which we could find harmony if not a real Canadian peace.
'Things will remain the same as long as the two major races of our nation will not accept to consider Canada, the whole of Canada and nothing else but Canada, as their only country, even if they must keep and maintain certain ties with the European countries from which they originated.
I believe that our government ought to engage immediately and in a practical way in a campaign of national unity to fortify the national structure of our people.
We would be very much in error to ask strangers to come and live with us; we would be very unwise to receive them and ask them to become Canadian citizens if we do not wish to possess the qualities and accept the conditions which must be attached to the title and characteristics of our nationality. We could not grant to anybody a right of Canadian citizenship of which we would not know and accept ourselves the real and definite meaning.
I wish to close, Mr. Speaker, with a note of national pride. All Canadians will be happy, I am sure, to put on for good the

Canadian Citizenship
glorious uniform of the free peoples which the government is offering everyone. All will be proud to become in the eyes of the whole world Canadian citizens. I am particularly fortunate in the beginning of my parliamentary life to participate in the adoption of such memorable legislation. I shall draw from that occasion the lessons which impose themselves upon all Canadians. I am proud and happy of this new title of Canadian citizen which our government is awarding me and all the others in my province and my country.
I hope-and this has been said so often that it is a hope which seems sometimes to be completely lost-that the time of our unfortunate national quarrels is definitely ended and that it will be forever forgotten. On the ashes of that painful past, Canada is rising with new power and greatness.
After more than three centuries of toil, effort and struggle, our country wishes now to break, one after another, all her ties, to proclaim her i faith and confidence in herself and in her future. Other legislation, such as that for the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag, will confirm this new profession of national faith, and I shall be proud to give it my entire support.
Canada left many years ago the humiliating valley of colonialism; she has marched slowly but with firm determination in the thorny path of the conquest of her liberties. With the help of all her people, she has now reached the gates of the City.
Mr. I.IGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains): Mr. Speaker, I am deeply pleased to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) who has delivered a splendid speech, based on a real Canadian spirit.
(Translation): In introducing this bill, the government takes another step towards the independence of Canada. As soon as Canadian citizenship has been proclaimed, we shall have covered a further stage in the achievement of an ideal shared by those who believe that Canada is a nation. Canadian citizenship symbolizes the nation's spirit. Whoever is ashamed of being a citizen of his own country does not deserve the protection of its laws. The bill now before us should have been introduced at the very time when confederation came into being. We are in honour bound to create at last a Canadian mentality and a Canadian citizenship. We should not let the last traces of a narrow colonialism hinder the development of such mentality and citizenship. It must become
known everywhere that Canada has reached her maturity. In this country as well as abroad, Canadians must prou.dly bear their own name and no other. We must personify Canada. No one can glory in personifying a country that is not his own. The refusal to bear its name would be unfair and disloyal to our country. Is there a true-hearted and honourable man who would deny his compatriots and himself the dignity which Canadian citizenship implies. No one but people with a subservient mind can ignore a sacred patriotism achieved through sacrifices, the loyalty and the spirit of justice and freedom of the men who have been the builders of this country.
The material, moral, social and spiritual personification- of a Canadian motherland will never enter the hearts or minds of colonials, because the feelings they harbour are for another land than Canada. Let us respect and honour the motherland by respecting and honouring ourselves. Let us pass this measure which transcends individual selfishness, because it embodies the freedom and the glory of the motherland and her sons. The time has come to give a name suggesting the motherland to every man, woman and child in Canada. There is-no freedom and no glory in concealing her origin and her true name, whether at home or abroad. Canadian citizenship will prevent many acts of treason. It will give to the weak the courage of remaining loyal and honest to their country. Let us sever the last links which carry with them the humiliation of bearing a name that is not our own. Let us hold up our heads and assume again our name and our rank as a nation, We are now a mature nation. We should do nothing that could depreciate and dishonour the nation. We have no right to deny our compatriots and ourselves a name which belongs to us and illustrates the nationality of every one among us. What Canadian citizen would want to be called a pariah or a man without a country, here or anywhere in the world? If such a man exists, I say that he does not deserve to live in this country, or to enjoy the privileges that belong to a Canadian citizen. Is it because favours have been showered on him? Is it because he has enjoyed all the privileges and prerogatives of this country's citizens that he would be ashamed of being a Canadian? I say that such a man is a constant danger to the motherland because his attitude borders on treason. Is there not something tragic in the state of mind of people of that ilk? We do not belong to a civilization lost in some wilderness. We do not want to follow any longer in the wake of the empire. We want to be and remain our own selves. That is the lofty ideal of a whole
Canadian Citizenship

nation. Nothing humiliates and debases a people as much as the restriction of its freedom. Let us proclaim before the whole world that Canada is a mature nation and that her people are proud of their distinct nationality which will be consecrated by this measure that I heartily support.
I have had an opportunity of hearing sound arguments on this bill. Some members of this house would like the last trace of the expression "British subject" eliminated from the bill. I agree with them, but I think it is my bounden duty to Canada and to our fellow-citizens to support the principle of this measure which consecrates .Canadian citizenship. In spite of its flaws, this bill evidences a progress which we should acknowledge loyally and without any reservation. Some say a measure supplementing this bill will become necessary as a matter of course. The principle that underlies it is excellent and I should not be justified in opposing it. I am in duty bound to help the evolution of our new prerogatives. I shall do so most willingly, with the conviction that in a country like ours nothing must be left undone when her freedom and sovereignty are at stake.
If I am not mistaken the week which will soon end is the week of national pride. That is why this bill should be passed unanimously. The rights of the citizen will at last be recognized and respected in Canada. Canadian citizenship ought to remove the differences which divide us in this country. Let us confidently hope that those convictions which are at variance with our own will be dissipated by the much nobler and higher ideal of a Canadian nationality and a Canadian motherland. Even in the sphere of politics, the differences which have separated and divided us should vanish before the freedom and sovereignty which are proclaimed in the bill now under consideration.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: Cross over to this side.


Mr. LACOMBE:: We have fought for freedom and justice. We have no right to shirk the duty of giving more freedom and justice to Canadian citizens. That is the purpose of the measure which we are asked to support. I shall do so without effort, in the name of the national unity and harmony which I would like to see forever entrenched in this country. I hope no one will protest in the name of colonialism. All true Canadians are looking forward to-day to a revival of an internal pp 'ce based on a Canadian nationality and a Canadian flag. We are used to hearing the partisans of colonialism voice their protests when the issue at stake is our right to self-government. At .a time when Canada must restore its economic and social life, we must advance

determinedly along the path of political and national evolution. Let us not sacrifice on the altar of imperialism, the fruits of many years' suffering.
I believe the time has come to restore in every Canadian citizen the dignity of his rank both in our country and outside, so that he may no longer depend, directly or indirectly, on a foreign power. This bill does not satisfy me entirely, but it nevertheless embodies a principle which is essential to our Canadian nationality. Because of that principle, I have decided to vote in favour of the bill. I do not want my fellow-citizens to retrogress; such a disgrace could be used by our worst enemies to their own advantage. On the contrary, I want them to be respected everywhere. Canadian citizenship is the synthesis of individual political rights.
I positively state that it is up to the legislator to develop in this country a truly national spirit, if Canada is to attain real greatness. The administration is discharging an imperious duty to Canadians and Canada, in giving our citizens a national status. Llenceforth the Canadian citizen will have his distinctive characteristics. His national status will now be recognized both at home and abroad.
I conclude my remarks by quoting section 3 of the Canadian Citizenship Act:
Where, under any act of the parliament of Canada or an order or a regulation made under such act, a person is required to state or declare his national status, any person who is a Canadian citizen under this act may state or declare himself to be a Canadian citizen and his statement or declaration to that effect shall be a good and sufficient compliance with such requirement.
The short title of this act is a proof of the evolution of 'Canadian nationality. I support this bill, hoping that time, which improves and humanizes legislations, will evolve in the case of the measure under consideration, the amendments that will render it perfectly acceptable. I prefer being a Canadian citizen to mourning the loss of my nationality. I. have taken an oath of allegiance to the King of Canada. I am faithful and loyal to His Majesty, and I am proud to serve him in Canada as a Canadian citizen.
Some object to section 26 of the Act which reads as follows: "A Canadian citizen is a British subject".
Does this mean that I should reject this bill just because it contains that clause? I say no. It is true that I should like to see the last vestige of dependence disappear in the matter of Canadian citizenship, but I am

Railway Act
justified in supporting the bill as a whole in view of the principle essential to the Canadian nationality which it establishes.


@Acting Speaker: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I shall complete my remarks in a couple of minutes.


Roch Pinard: Go ahead.


Liguori Lacombe: Further, I shall not adopt an uncompromising attitude and condemn everything worth while which this bill contains merely in order to undertake a dissertation on the advisability or otherwise of section 26. After all, it is better to seek the good in everything, than to constantly complain about possible defects.
Yesterday was Canada's day. To-day is Canadian citizenship day. To-morrow will be national flag's day. How well these measures supplement one another and tighten the bonds between the present and a past marked by greatness and valour! Notwithstanding the presumptuous .protests of a small number of colonial-minded persons who would withhold from their country the right to grow in stature, let us unfurl our sails towards a future in which Canada will be recognized and respected as one of the great nations of the world. Despite the ultra-loyalists and imperialists who prefer tutorship to full nationhood, bondage to liberty, despite the deplorable colonialism shown by those wrho refuse to join in Canada's march of progress towards independence and sovereignty, let us continue with unflinching courage the struggle from which our Canadian citizens will emerge victorious, having attained dignity, individuality and citizenship.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
RAILWAY ACT	.



POWER TO PROHIBIT SOUND SIGNALS AT CROSSINGS IN OR NEAR CITIES AND TOWNS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Adamson for the second reading of bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Act.
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I listened the other evening with keen interest to the debate on the second
reading of bill No. 8, to amend the Railway Act, as brought forward in this house by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) on behalf of the sponsor, who was unavoidably absent.
The bill raises an important point, and I think I can sum up pretty -well everything I have to say by stating that there are a number of things to be said in favour of it As framed, it meets the situation referred to by the hon. member for Peel. On the other hand, there are two objections to the bill, and, having these in mind, I think it behooves the house to send the bill to a committee. Before making a motion to that effect, however, there are several facts which I should like to bring out.
The condition referred to by the hon. member for Peel as existing in the city of Toronto and the neighbourhood contiguous thereto is one of which I have been aware for some time. There can be no doubt that in that locality a great deal of' annoyance exists among the citizens living outside the city of Toronto in consequence of the ringing of bells and the blowing of locomotive whistles. Complaints have 'been made to the board of transport commissioners and the Department of Transport from time to time, and I agree with the hon. member for Peel that the situation is certainly not an enviable one, particularly when the health, quiet and peace of mind of residents are concerned, seeing that, as the hon. gentleman stated, some 700 whistles are blown during the course of one day. With the residents there can be nothing but understanding1 and sympathy.
As I have pointed out, however, there are fundamental and technical objections to this bill, and those objections I should like to draw to the attention of the house to-night.
Section 308 of the Railway Act is that section which wiis put in for the purpose of protecting the public from accidents, and it reads:
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 bell shall be rung continuously from the time of the sounding of the whistle until the engine has crossed such highway.
There is a definite and clear obligation, placed in the statute, on the part of the railways. That section is the foundation of all actions in damages arising out of accidents or deaths at level crossings. Apart from that statute, there may be, and I believe there is,



Railway Act
a common law liability on the part of the railway if the crossing is not properly protected.
Subsection 2 of this section 308 provides a breakdown and takes away from that basic action which lies against the railway, when it states:
Where a municipal by-law 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.
In other words, if the municipality of a city or town by by-law prohibits the sounding of the whistle or the ringing of the bell, and the board approves that by-law, then the company shall be relieved of the obligation. The company shall not be relieved of lia-* bility, however, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) intimated the other night in his remarks. It will be relieved only of liability to blow the whistle and ring the bell.	.
What the bill purports to do is to cut down still further that statutory obligation on the part of the railway by extending the prohibition to townships and villages contiguous to or near such city or town; and if all the municipalities which are villages and townships and in which there are these level crossings were to pass by-laws of the kind referred to in this bill, then there would be no reason whatever for the existence of section 308. It would have been practically all nullified by these amendments.
I say that by way of a general statement because I believe that parliament will want to see that the rights of the public are protected so far as level crossings are concerned.
In cities and towns where under existing provisions the sounding of a whistle may be prohibited, the speed of trains is restricted both by the provisions of the statute and by the actual necessities of train operation. The speed of motor cars is also restricted as a rule to thirty miles an hour or less. In the open country trains travel at faster rates of speed, sixty and sometimes eighty miles an hour, and in the open country motor cars also travel at faster rates.
In these circumstances the general adaption of the prohibition for which the bill provides, even in only those portions of municipalities adjacent to cities and towns, would increase enormously the risk of accident to those using the highways and add considerably to the dangers of train operation, because a collision between a locomotive and an automobile usually results in death or, at any rate, serious

injury to the occupants of the motor car and sometimes also in injury to the train crew and the passengers when the brakes are applied quickly in an emergency. I make that statement simply to point this out to the house. While the bill seeks to rectify a situation which should be corrected, still in doing that in municipalities contiguous to cities it may create a set of circumstances elsewhere and defeat the very purpose of the bill.
There were one or two things said the other evening by two hon. members who took part in the debate to which I wish to refer. The hon. member for Broadview seemed to complain about the board of transport commissioners generally; he felt they were not performing their duty in cases such as this. I should like to say to him that the obligations of the board of transport commissioners are set out in the Railway Act. It is their duty to enforce the sections of the act as they are brought to their attention. If the hon. gentleman would take the time to look at the annual report of the board of transport commissioners for 1945, which was tabled in this house a few days ago, he would see for himself the scope, work, and operation of that board.
Dealing particularly with the complaint of the hon. gentleman, let me say that the report of the engineering department of the board of transport commissioners indicates that 420 inspections covering the whole dominion were made in 1945. These inspections covered opening of railways for the carriage of traffic; highway crossings; signal protection on highway crossings; bridges; subways; interlocking spans; drainage; private crossings; railway lines in connection with maintenance; signals on swing bridges; fencing; improved view at crossings; investigation and inspection in connection with accidents on railway lines and at highway crossings; automatic block signals; less than a standard clearance and many inspections in connection with projects to provide post-war work.	*
The hon. gentleman said that he was in favour of this bill, and yet toward the end of his remarks he at least led me to believe that he was strongly opposed to anything which might tend to create accidents at crossings. That is the very thing which this house should guard against. It should not do anything which, while it may help a group which is deserving of help, may on the other hand tend to affect the great mass of the public by taking away from them certain rights which they already have under the . statute.
The hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson) made certain references to automatic-

Railway Act
signals. He was of the opinion that the government should take steps to instal automatic signals at every level crossing in the country. That is a large order, because the protection referred to by the hon. member would be in addition to that which is already granted under the act. The total number of railway crossings in Canada is 33,396. Of this number only approximately 3,020 are protected by grade separations or some, form of automatic protection such as gates, wig-wags and bells or flashing lights and bells. It is therefore clear to the house that the magnitude of the task becomes apparent.
For many years it has been the practice of the board of transport commissioners in administering the act, where protective devices are directed to be installed, to set aside at places or points where the junction between the highway and the railway is dangerous, forty per cent of the cost of the construction of a device for protection. As a rule, the remainder is made up by an assessment against the railway and the municipality having jurisdiction over the highway. There is no set rule as to the amount which should be assessed against one or the other. That may depend upon the amount of traffic. For instance, if the highway is responsible for the increased traffic it may well be that the board of transport commissioners will assess a greater proportion against the highway than against the railway. On the other hand, if it is the railway which is responsible for the increased traffic the board would act accordingly.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Would the minister permit a question? I am going to agree with everything he says by the time he gets through, but I wonder whether he is quite accurate in his last statement. Let us take a highway in the precincts of a town that grew after the Canadian Pacific railway was built. If the municipality crosses the railway and wants a separation of grade the municipality must bear all the costs-if my memory serves me aright, and it may not- and vice versa. That is my memory unless the rule has been changed.


Lionel Chevrier: That is certainly not my understanding.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I may be
wrong, but I doubt it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am referring now not only to grade separation but to any sort of protection which may have to be set up in order to protect the public against accidents. As the practice exists to-day the board of transport commissioners pay forty per cent. That is the maximum amount they are allowed
to pay under the act and under the railway grade crossing fund toward the'actual cost of the construction 'of the protection. The board has no authority to make a grant toward the cost of maintenance or operation. The remainder of the cost is divided between the municipality and the railway. I am informed that that is the practice of the board.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the
minister include subways in that?


Lionel Chevrier: No; that comes under a different category.


Arthur Leroy Smith: After all, a
change of grade is a matter of a subway.


Lionel Chevrier: I make that general
statement because I thought the house would be interested in it in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Durham.
- I do not think the house believes that the board of transport commissioners or even parliament should pass legislation under which parliament would provide all the funds for the protection of all crossings in Canada.
To sum up what I have said, I repeat that the condition which this bill seeks to rectify is a meritorious one; it is one which deserves consideration. On the other hand, there are technical objections to the bill because the words "township", "village", "town" and "city" do not include all the municipalities across this country. There are other words used in other provinces which would not be covered, by those four words, so that which might meet" this situation contiguous to the city of Toronto, would not meet it in other parts of the country. Under the circumstances, therefore,. I think the proper thing is to refer this bill! to the railway committee and to invite before-that committee representatives of the railway association of Canada, of the railways and any others who want to give evidence. If that is done the merits of the bill will be .carefully considered. I therefore move- .


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I think it would be better to have a second reading, and when the bill is read the second time-


Lionel Chevrier: I propose to have submitted to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines the subject-matter of the bill; and I now move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell):
That the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject-matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph iines.


Thomas Langton Church: The city of Toronto has put millions of dollars unnecessarily into grade separation along the water-
63260-39J
Railway Act

front. If this bill goes to the railway committee, will the Canadian National Railways bring forward any plans for the electrification of its lines within a radius of fifteen miles of the city? I acted for the city when we settled the viaduct case. The Canadian Pacific got a right of way many years ago, before my time, all the way down to the Don river for 1600 a year, and the Canadian National is in the same position. In my opinion we shall never get rid of this nuisance until we electrify the system for a distance of fifteen miles around the city. Toronto spent millions of dollars on harbour improvements, and in the viaduct case we agreed to pay one-third of the cost, although in other cities the railways paid the entire cost. The approach to the city runs for twelve miles along the city-owned waterfront, and with the cheap light and power we have to-day it would not be a very great matter to bring about this electrification. The only cost would be the engines and the power, and that is the only way this nuisance will be overcome. I should like to ask the minister whether has any plan in that connection.


Lionel Chevrier: I would say to the hon. gentleman that this bill has nothing to do with the electrification of railways entering the city of Toronto or elsewhere. It has to do with the abatement of a nuisance contiguous to the city of Toronto. Therefore the Canadian National Railways would not be subject to examination on the point he has raised. I would say, however, that if the hon. gentleman wants to deal with that question when the committee on railways and shipping is set up, he will have an opportunity to examine the president of the Canadian National Railways and his officials on the point.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I want a. few minutes of yo-ur time on this.


Angus MacInnis: I rise to a point of order. Is a motion to refer debatable? I do not think it is, under the rules of this house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This is an amendment; it is not a motion.


William Ross Macdonald: The motion
before the house is an amendment to the original motion, and the amendment is debatable because the original motion, itself was debatable.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I gather, sir, that I may proceed1. I wish to assure my hon. friend that I am going to be helpful and not critical.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Calgary West is now speaking to the *amendment.
[Mr. Church.l


Angus MacInnis: I am not objecting; I
merely want to see the rules observed, and in my opinion this is not in order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want them to be observed, too, but I also want you to be happy.


William Ross Macdonald: May I say that I think we shall all be happier if hon. members will kindly address the Chair.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I seem
to be getting into difficulty. With great respect, sir, I have been thrown out by many chairmen; but I appreciate what you say and I will address the Chair.
I speak on this matter with a bit of experience. In order that you, sir, and the house may discount what I am going to say first, I should state that in some thirty years I have acted for both railways in the area in which I live, so that leaves it wide open for anybody to say, Well, his remarks do not amount to anything because no doubt he is prejudiced on that particular side. Perhaps I had better complete the story. The chairman of the transportation board is a distant relative of mine by marriage, so that I have said everything against myself that I possibly can say at this moment.
I have a suggestion to offer. We know all about level crossing accidents. I know they cost the railways a great deal of money; the railways do not carry insurance of that kind but absorb the loss themselves, and I think that lets them out. But what I have in mind is the great loss of life that we have at level crossings. It is true that many times persons in motor cars have not been struck by an engine but have driven into the side of a train. If, sir, you will permit me to divorce myself from the financial aspect of this matter it seems to me that the important point in a measure of this kind is the saving of life. It is true that we used to have two longs and two shorts blown at a crossing. The transport commission, for some reason best known to itself, changed that to three longs and one short, which must be blown eighty yards from the crossing; and the bell must be kept ringing constantly. You get into a lawsuit of this kind and I know, from the railway point of view, no one ever hears the bell ringing or the whistle blowing; in fact everyone in the area about which the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) Was speaking would swear that the bell was never rung and the whistle never blown. Why is that? Because they become accustomed to these things, in the same way that we become accustomed to street-cars going by our doors if we happen to live on a car line; we are

Railway Act
not awakened because we can become accustomed to certain noises. Some people even like the sound of cats and dogs howling around the back fence, though I have not got that far yet.
I am glad this bill is being referred to a committee, and my thought is this. I quite realize that it is impossible to have power iput in to handle 33,000 swinging signs at level crossings. That is really a tremendous undertaking. Certainly in our branch lines, which have not the block system of signals, it would require complete electrical equipment in order to do that.	.
Really, I am not speaking about saving the railways any money; but the answer to the problem, it seems to me, is that we should adopt the rule which is in force in the United States, namely the rule of "stop, look and listen". One will see many signs in Canada which say, "Look and listen"-in compliance with our law. But persons always say they looked and listened, but they did not hear the bell or the whistle.
How far have we gone with that, aside from the Railway Act? I believe in most of the provinces, certainly in the one from which I come, there is provision in the respective motor vehicles acts whereby all school buses, and all passenger carrying vehicles for hire, by law must stop at railway tracks. That, as I say, is the law in the province from which I come; I know it is true in Saskatchewan, and I believe it is in British Columbia.


Mr. REID:: It is.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am told it is true in Ontario. Indeed, I should like even to give evidence before the committee, although I have never been hit by a railway train. People who have been hit rarely give evidence, because they are not there to give it.
It seems to me that the bill raised a question with which the committee might well deal, and therefore I am very much in favour of the amendment moved by the minister. I hope, however, he will not regard this bill as one having to' do with localized areas. Rather I should hope the committee would regard it as one having to do with the saving of hundreds of human lives every year in Canada. I am reasonably sure that if that broad rule were adopted it would, in effect, save seventy-five per cent of lives which now are uselessly and foolishly lost as a result of collisions between motor vehicles and railway trains.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, as one who is thoroughly familiar with the area to which the bill refers, namely that including the entrances to the city of Toronto, I rise in support of it.
However, before saying what I intend to say I should like to express my appreciation of the manner in which the minister always handles matters which come under his control, when he refers to them in the house. Evidently he gives these matters careful thought, and apparently inquires fully into all the background material. May I compliment him upon his handling of matters of this kind.
Having said that, I would invite him, between now and the time his estimates are discussed, to give consideration and study toward the improvement of matters such as those dealt with in the bill. Large numbers of trains pass hourly through the west of Toronto area; I believe one hon. member gave the exact number. Not only do accidents occur through collisions between motor vehicles and trains, but in addition the smoke nuisance has reached tremendous proportions. Closely associated with the high rate of accidents is the smoke nuisance.
I would ask the minister to give thorough study to the whole problem of railway entrances into large cities, and I would direct his attention particularly to the city of Toronto, and the possibility of electrification of railway lines in that area. In the Toronto area we have ample electrical power. The Ontario hydro electric commission could supply all the electricity required to electrify the rail entrances to that city, and if such development were carried out the smoke nuisance which now obtains all along the front area would be eliminated. If that electrification were carried out, with the consequent reduction in noise which is now endured, that lower section of Toronto would become a great residential centre. At the present time development is more or less at a standstill because of the smoke nuisance.
While the bill does not mention either smoke nuisance or electrification, I have taken the liberty of discussing these subjects because of the keen interest shown by the minister in matters which come to his attention.
If the house decides to send this bill to the committee on railways I believe it would be dealt with properly. I know what the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) is up against. In all those thickly settled municipalities west of Toronto the noise nuisance and the injuries resulting from smoke have caused considerable annoyance.
Canadian Citizenship

I should appreciate it if the minister would study these problems connected with railway entrances into cities and the electrification of equipment. This is being done in England. We know that throughout England engines are now being electrified. The last time I was in London wires and cables were being laid for the electrification of the entrances to that great city. Whether it has been completed or not, I cannot say; but I plan going to England shortly, and I shall make my own inquiries-I like to do that, anyway.
I for one, would be glad to support any effort the minister may make to carry out the whole programme touched upon by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) who, on all occasions, goes deeply into matters coming under his purview. May I extend my compliments to him, too, on the keen interest he takes in everything with which he associates himself. It is evident from his observations that he has had wide experience in these matters, and I know he would be glad to assist the minister in any survey that might be made in connection with electrification of entrances to cities, the elimination of smoke nuisances, and any other matters connected with rapid transit systems running into and out of the large cities.
Amendment (Mr. Chevrier) agreed to, and bill referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Martin for the second reading of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) made his speech on the second reading of this bill I thought he became a little expansive. I had a vision of his bringing into the world the first of a new species of manhood-the Canadian. Then he became the wise man coming bearing a rich gift to the Canadian people-the right to call themselves Canadians. After listening this afternoon to the speeches of the hon. member for Outre-mont (Mr. Rinfret) and the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard), I can understand that to them this bill does perhaps give them for the first time the right to call themselves Canadians. I give them credit for being sincere in their remarks and I must admit that theirs was an outlook I had not realized existed.

For me, and I am sure for many other members of the house, there has never been any question of my right to call myself a Canadian. Those of us who served in the last war were more proud of the word "Canada"' which we bore on our shoulder-straps than of any other fact about our service. I think throughout the whole of our lives we shall have that feeling of pride in being Canadians. No one, either ally or foe, ever dared to question the fact that we were Canadians. I have even quarrelled with the poor census taker on different occasions when he tried to compel me to give the racial origin of my father. I have insisted that I was a Canadian and have been registered as such. I think that is the general attitude of the majority of the Canadian people and for them this bill only does away with certain complexities and removes certain anomalies. As such it is a bill rvhich I am glad to support. The Secretary of State himself said that was the case when he spoke on October 22 of last year on the first reading of a similar bill. He said, as reported on page 1335 of Hansard of that year:
It should not be concluded from this that the hill in reality makes any sweeping change or that there has not previously been any such thing as Canadian nationality.
When speaking in the debate this year his words were much the same. He said, and I quote from page 502 of Hansard:
As I shall endeavour to show, it seeks to avoid many complexities and confusions which arise from existing legislation.
In considering this bill we should come down from the emotional heights on which we have been travelling during the earlier hours of the debate and consider the bill in a more realistic way. After all, it is an important and complicated bill and it merits the most careful consideration of every member of the house. I regret greatly that the government has decided not to send it to the external affairs committee, as planned last session. I think also a great mistake is being made in not bringing down the amendments to the Immigration Act so that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot bring down the amendments to the Immigration Act. As I said in my speech on the second reading, the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) will bring down any amendments which will be made pursuant to this bill.


Howard Charles Green: It is a great mistake not to bring down the amendments to the Immigration Act now so that we can consider the two bills together and get the whole picture rather

Canadian Citizenship
than passing the citizenship bill now and then having to deal with the immigration bill some weeks or months hence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The only amendment to the Immigration Act would be to section 2, and that is covered in this bill.


Howard Charles Green: If that is the only amendment, then there is all the more reason why it should be brought down without delay.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There will be no delay.


Howard Charles Green: There are certain features of this bill which I should like to discuss this evening, the first being part I which deals with natural-born Canadian citizens. They are given very broad rights and perhaps that is the proper thing to do, but it seems to me that there has not been sufficient thought given to the question of what is to be done with the. natural-born Canadian who has transferred his loyalty to another country. We are granting extensive rights to natural-born Canadians and yet there are natural-born Canadians who do not deserve those rights. As far as I can see, there are not adequate provisions in the bill to deal with a man of that type.
There were Japanese born in Canada who went back to Japan before the war and served in the Japanese forces. For instance, there was a Canadian-born Japanese who was the chief torturer of our own troops in Hong Kong. The way this bill reads now, that man would have the right to claim that he is a natural-born Canadian and is entitled to everything that goes to a citizen of that class. There should be some test. The bill merely says that if a person born in Canada has become an alien, then he is no longer entitled to the rights of a natural-born Canadian. But there is no definition of how he becomes an alien. The government might well consider putting in a provision to the effect that if such a man has shown himself to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty, then he should lose the rights of a natural-born Canadian. The same criticism applies in the case of people bom after the bill comes into effect. The government should consider ways and means of preventing a man who is not loyal to this country from having the rights of a natural-born Canadian.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is provided for in
the bill.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think it is adequately covered by the bill.
I come now to the Canadian citizen who is not a natural-born Canadian; this is covered by part II of the bill. The thing that worries me is the1 treatment meted out
to citizens of the other nations of the commonwealth. I look at the British commonwealth as a partnership of independent and equal nations, and, by the way, the greatest partnership of all time. Those of you who are in a partnership know that you cannot kick your partners around; it pays to treat them a little better than you treat people on the outside, otherwise the partnership will dissolve sooner or later.
This afternoon the hon. member for Outre-mont and the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville both said that they believed in the British empire; both believed in Canada continuing as a nation in the commonwealth, so that there is no disagreement between them and myself on that score; but let us see how we are treating our partners under this part II of the bill.
In the first place, the man who has come from Australia to British Columbia during the last four years is not to be considered a Canadian citizen; he must have been here for five years, otherwise when this bill is passed he must go through the naturalization court. Of course the Immigration Act provides that anyone coming to Canada does not acquire domicile for purposes of that act until he or she has been here for five years, and it is from that act that this five-year term has come. But I think the government, considering that the provision I am criticizing deals with our partners, might very well have said that any Australian or New Zealander or Scotsman or Englishman or Irishman or Welshman who is legally entered in Canada, that is, has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence, at the time this bill comes into effect, shall be considered a Canadian citizen. Let us not be cheap about this business. Let us say that anyone who has come here from Australia, for example and is permanently settled here shall be a Canadian citizen upon the passing of this act.
The key section of the bill is No. 10, which has to do with naturalization. I say it is the key section of the whole bill, and it changes our law. Under the present law, when we naturalize a person he becomes a British subject; it is in effect a commonwealth citizenship. That has been the case ini Canada for many years, just as it has been the case in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Now, if this bill is not changed the only advantage a British subject will have is that he will not have to take a declaration of intention to become a citizen. That is the only advantage he will have over a person from another nation, say from Russia or from
Canadian Citizenship

China. He must wait here in Canada five years. That will mean sooner or later that he will not be able to vote for five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not necessarily.


Howard Charles Green: It is true that at the present time he can vote as a British subject after one year, but the minister himself said the other day in his speech, as reported in Hansard at page 503, that this Canadian citizenship will be the fundamental status upon whidh the rights and privileges of Canadians will depend, and it is only a question of time until the franchise will be based on Canadian citizenship. That means that a man coming here from Australia will not be able to vote for five years, whereas for years now he has been able to vote after having been here for one year. It means that he will have to appear in naturalization court beside the man from Russia and the man from China-the first time that has ever been done in Canada. I believe the first time it has ever been done in the British empire. He will have to take the oath of allegiance, and1-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, he will not. There will be no oath of allegiance in that case. He has taken it. He is a subject of the king.


Howard Charles Green: He will have to get people to vouch for him. He will be subject to investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In effect, this change takes away most of the value of commonwealth citizenship in Canada. Yet at the same time this bill seeks, in section 26, to retain for a Canadian citizen the rights of a British subject outside Canada. In other words, we are taking away these rights from the Australian but we are trying to keep them for the Canadian who goes to Australia.
I should like to place one thought before my good friends the hon. members for Outremont and Chambly-Rouville who spoke this afternoon. They are not in their seats this evening but many of their friends are here. They seem to place absolutely no value on commonwealth citizenship, and that is where their thinking goes wrong. Why is it not far better for us to have our rights as Canadian citizens and also to have our rights as citizens of the commonwealth? Surely two rights are better than one. They do not interfere with each other, and the citizenship in the commonwealth is of great value. I know, sir, if they think that over they will agree with me. It is not that anybody puts commonwealth citizenship ahead of Canadian citizenship at all, but it is a case of the two citizenships, the two rights being -better than one. If they and their friends can agree with me on that I can see no

reason why we should- not have a united Canada in the years that lie ahead. In any event I suggest to the government that this provision be altered so as to put some real value on commonwealth citizenship. Do not cut away the rights of a citizen of the British commonwealth as you have done in this bill. There are good- reasons for giving the citizens of a commonwealth nation- a better place than the man who comes here from Russia or from China.
An 'h-on. MEMBER: Why?


Howard Charles Green: The commonwealth citizen comes here having the same allegiance as we have, allegiance to the same crown. He comes here with the same traditions; we have common traditions. He comes -here understanding our system of justice, having had the same type of government, having the same democratic outlook as we have 'here in Canada.
These other nations, I repeat, are our partners. Let us remember that. Let us not hit at our best friends. Have the English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans who have been here in Canada with us through the years shown that such a drastic change is necessary? These provisions are a direct reflection on them and on the part they have played in building up this nation. It is significant that the minister did not even refer to this drastic change when introducing this bill last session, when introducing it this session, or when speaking on it on second reading of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did, on both occasions.


Howard Charles Green: I will let hon. members judge for themselves.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, look at Hansard.


Howard Charles Green: Let them read Hansard and they will see that this drastic change was not explained by the minister on any one of these three occasions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On both occasions. Look at Hansard.


Howard Charles Green: Then, as to the part dealing with procedure and evidence, we all agree that it is wise to provide instruction in the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship to those who are applying for that citizenship, and that those rights and responsibilities should be impressed by the court that hears the applicant. This is a move in the right direction. I have been advocating it for years; so has the Secretary of State, and neither of us has ever been able to understand why such provisions were not put into our laws years ago, just as they were put into the law of the United States. I repeat,

Canadian Citizenship
it is a move in the right direction; and yet it is, oh, so strange, to find in section 10, subsection 1, paragraph (e) that now for the first time in Canada the applicant for citizenship need not speak either of our official languages. He need not speak either French or English.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. I am sure he does not wish to misstate the situation. This is an important measure. It does not state what the section says; it says, after twenty years.


Howard Charles Green: Yet under this bill-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that not right?


Howard Charles Green: Just wait a minute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You wish to be fair now.


Howard Charles Green: I will read the provision and hon. members can judge for themselves:
(e) he has an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language, or, if he lias not such an adequate knowledge, he has resided continuously in Canada for more than twenty years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: That has arisen, I believe, because of the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act and the mothers' allowance acts in the different provinces. There are deserving persons who have been unable to qualify for old age pension or mother's allowance because they were not naturalized, and they could not be naturalized because they could not speak French or English, although the actual requirements are very slender so far as language is concerned. Those hon. members who have been in a naturalization court will realize how little of either language the applicant must know in order to pass the test. I suggest to the government that to meet those hard cases the Old Age Pensions Act should be changed rather than the Naturalization Act. I do not think it is sound to make the change in the Naturalization Act. Take the situation in my own province of British Columbia. This provision means that a Japanese who cannot speak English can qualify for citizenship if he has been in the country twenty years. The same is true of a Doukhobor, and in both cases they have lived largely in colonies where many of them have not learned to speak either of our languages.
Perhaps there is some reason for making that provision for those old people who are now living in Canada, although as I read the act it is not restricted to older people, and would apply equally to a young man of twenty-one. If he has been twenty years in the country he is entitled to apply for citizenship although he may not be able to speak English or French.
It is not so bad for those people who are already here, but this provision as it stands applies also to persons coming here in the future. A person coming here next year can wait twenty years and then apply for citizenship without having learned one of the official languages. It certainly is contrary to the whole spirit and intent of the bill, and being of a suspicious nature in political matters, I regard it as a change to get the government votes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Get them what?


Howard Charles Green: To get the government votes. You know what votes are.
Then to come to general suggestions about the bill; I suggest to the minister that it might be well to provide in the regulations for some welcoming ceremony, and it might even be wise to include in that ceremony our own young Canadians who have become twenty-one. Let them all go in together, all enter our citizenship - together.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That will be covered by the regulations.


Howard Charles Green: Let the naturalized and the natural-born Canadian who reaches the age of twenty-one go in together. Then the naturalization court judges should be given wider discretion. Let them see the reports that are made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before they hear the application. I suggest also that the naturalization court should be given a little money so that it can function.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear. You will help me when that comes up.


Howard Charles Green: At the present time it is just an orphan in the provincial courts. At present no provision is made for transcripts of evidence; there is no provision for stenographers and very little provision for clerks. It is done on the cheap and that is not good enough when the job is that of making new Canadian citizens. It mighl be worth while to advertise for complaints against applicants. That is done in the United Kingdom. I believe it would be very much worth while to put immigration, the nationalities branch and naturalization all under one department so that they would deal with the citizen coming to Canada, acquainting him with our laws and customs and making him welcome, and then naturalizing him. That work should all be under one department rather than spread out under different departments of government. Those are suggestions I have to make with regard to the bill.

Canadian Citizenship

In the time that remains to me I should like to say a few words about another problem having to do with citizenship and naturalization, and that is the Japanese problem. I am asking for a statement from the government on the effect of this citizenship bill on the government's policy with respect to Japanese in Canada. The bill is being cited as a means of retaining all the Japanese in Canada. The Japanese problem is directly involved with this bill and we do not want to have any misunderstanding about the effect the bill will have on the problem.
Last December the government announced a policy which was in effect that Japanese nationals who had asked to be sent back to Japan and had waived their rights to citizenship should be sent back; also that Japanese nationals who had been interned should be sent back; that naturalized Japanese who had not revoked their request for repatriation before the 1st of September, 1945, should go and Canadian-born Japanese who did not revoke their request for repatriation prior to a deportation order being issued; they are still able to revoke that request, right up to this very date.
Another branch of the policy was that a loyalty commission would be set up to check over Japanese nationals and those naturalized who had not asked to be sent back; if any were found disloyal they were to be repatriated.
There are to-day in Canada, or at least there were on February 28 of this year, a little over a month ago, 413 Japanese still interned. I saw some of them on my way east two weeks ago in the old German prisoner of war camp near Schreiber. There were 413 at the end of February, of whom 203 were born in Canada, 39 naturalized, 168 Japanese nationals and 3 United States citizens. The total number of Japanese in Canada as of December 31 who had asked to be repatriated was 10,380. They had also asked to have their rights as Canadian citizens waived. The request, of course,* was made by the father and in -some cases by the mother, but this figure also includes the children.
It is significant that over half of this 10,380 have not changed their minds even to this day. I have the figures here from the Department of Labour of requests for 'revocation received up to December 31. These figures show that 4,720 requested revocation of the application to be sent back; therefore, over five thousand still want to get back to Japan. Yet we have our C.C.F. friends here and a few pinks across the country, the editor of Saturday Night, the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press and the editor of the Toronto

Star putting on a great pressure campaign to have all these Japanese kept in Canada whether they want to go back or not. These people are more Japanese than the Japanese themselves. That is the strange part of it.
Government policy was brought down by order in council last December. At once there was a hue and cry that the Japanese must not be repatriated. The government permitted a case to be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision was handed down some weeks ago. This decision in effect said that the orders in council were valid. There was only one defect, namely, that in one of the groups the wives and children could not be sent back. Since then there have been delegations to the cabinet. All the pressure has been in favour of keeping the Japanese here. I would suggest to the government that they do not pay much attention to pressure campaigns of that t3fpe. As members of parliament we know just what these campaigns mean, how easily they are organized and how few people make how much noise.
We want to know whether the government is now preparing to drop this last policy on the Japanese1 question. If the government weakens and the Japanese now in British Columbia are allowed to stay, there will be over 14,000 there. Three-fifths of the Japanese are still in British Columbia. I have the figures here. As of February 28, 1946, 14,692 were still in British Columbia despite all the attempts of the government to get them to disperse across Canada, out of a total of 24,157. Most of those now east of the Rockies would come back to the coast. Take, for example, the 3,000 Japanese relocated in Alberta by the Department of Labour. They were put there under an agreement with the province that after the war, if the province wished it, they would be taken away again. On February 4, Premier Manning of Alberta is quoted as saying:
We want them moved as soon as the agreement terminates at the statutory end of the war period.
That has been his stand throughout.
If the government caves in on its policy the net result will be that the Japanese problem in Canada will be back just where it was in 1941, namely, in British Columbia's lap; and in forty or fifty years there will be forty or fifty thousand Japanese on the coast, again in contact with Japanese merchant ships, going back and forth .to Japan, again under domination of the Japanese consul, still worshipping the Japanese emperor and still a menace.

Canadian Citizenship
61&
I cannot point out to the house how serious the situation may well be. Take the fishing industry on our coast. Many years ago it was necessary to cut down the number of licences given to the Japanese. When war broke out they had to be taken off the sea. Every Japanese boat had to be called in because the government did not know who could be trusted. Other fishermen have come in. White fishermen and Indians have replaced the Japanese. There are more fish being caught now than ever before, and if the Japanese come back into the fishing industry on the British Columbia coast I believe there will be bloodshed there; the situation is just that serious.
We intend to hold the government to its policy. We ask also that the whole of British Columbia be made a protective zone permanently as a defence measure. That is the policy advocated by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). I hope he has not changed his mind since the announcement he made just a little over a year ago.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Not one bit.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Would the hon.
member permit a question for information purposes? Is that the policy of the Conservative party? If so, he may get some recruits over there. I should like to know if it is the official policy.


Howard Charles Green: I am surprised that the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cmickshank) has taken so long to get over to this side because that has been the policy for a long time. That is the policy on which we fought the campaign in British Columbia. Certainly there is no reason why those who have never revoked their request to go back to Japan should not be sent there without delay. If the government is not satisfied with the orders in council enabling the policy to be carried out let it bring a measure before parliament and see how the members stand on this question. The main reason why there was trouble in the Supreme Court of Canada was that this policy was carried out under order in council. The difficulty can be met by parliament enacting a measure. Last fall the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) said that the government intended to carry out this policy even though there was a change in the national emergency powers bill. I hold in my hand Hansard of December 5, 1945, and in the translation from the French edition the following appears in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond). This is what the Minister of Justice said:
I shall tell him quite frankly that what was-requested in the bill introduced on November 23 implied things that are not asked for at this-time, but which we have not forgone and will request from parliament through other measures.
Parliament can empower the government to act on this question. We will support the government. I am confident that the Social Credit party will support them because of the stand they have taken throughout. The C.C.F. will not.


An hon. MEMBER:: We all know that.


Angus MacInnis: We will support
Canadians.


Howard Charles Green: But they and their pink friends are not yet running Canada. This Japanese problem is a practical question. It must be dealt with in a practical way. The real genius of the governments of the British nations has 'been that questions are dealt with realistically, not by theorizing at which my friends of the C.C.F. are so good.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: The hon. member has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Angus MacInnis: I think he has exhausted his subject as well.


Howard Charles Green: Nor by being righteous at the expense of someone else like the editors of those newspapers, and many of the people who are opposing the people of British Columbia on this question. This citizenship bill must not be used as an excuse for the government to abandon its Japanese policy. British Columbia would never forgive or forget such action.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some comments on this bill before the motion for second reading is carried. What are the purposes of the bill, as explained by the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) when he introduced similar legislation on October 22 last and when he introduced this bill on Tuesday of this week? I think I can sum up those purposes as follows. First, it is to give a clearer definition of Canadian citizenship; second, to give to Canada one of the symbols of nationhood, and, third, to promote national unity in Canada.
Having in mind those three purposes, let us examine the bill and see if it corresponds to those enunciated aims. In reading over the bill, I fail to see any substantial change from the legislation we already have on our statute books. The change is more super-
Canadian Citizenship

ficial than real. It has a promising title but it gives nothing more than we already have. After all, what counts is not so much the label on the box but what the box contains. As a matter of fact, as the minister said, already we have a Canadian nationality derived from the Canadian Nationals Act, passed in 1921. Left me quote the words of the minister as reported in Hansard of October 22, 1945, at page 1335:
It should not be concluded from this that the bill in reality makes any sweeping change or that there has not previously been any such thing as Canadian nationality. Despite what one often hears to the contrary, there has been a Canadian nationality . . .
I wanted to make this point clear at the beginning of my argument. It is now proposed by this bill to substitute the words "Canadian citizen" for- "Canadian national". I do not see the difference; Canadian national or Canadian citizen means the same thing. Is there any difference? If there is any difference, Canadian national means perhaps more. 'Then what about the proposed definition of "Canadian citizen" as compared with the existing definition of "Canadian national". In the Canadian National Act, 1921, we have the following definition of a "Canadian national":
Any British subject who is a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act.
Then the Immigration Act gives the definition of a Canadian citizen as follows:
' "Canadian citizen" means
(i)	a person born in Canada who has not become an alien;
(ii)	a British subject who has Canadian domicile; or
(iii)	a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile.
Section 2 of this bill defines a Canadian citizen as follows:
"Canadian citizen" means a person who is a Canadian citizen under this act.
Then parts I and II of the bill enumerate the qualifications required to be a natural-born Canadian citizen and a Canadian citizen other than natural-born; but to find the exact meaning of "Canadian citizen" one must read also parts III and IV of the bill. There will be found, among others, section 26, which says without any ambiguity that a Canadian citizen is a British subject. If both definitions amount to the same thing, nothing is added by the bill to clarify the ambiguity which the minister intends to remove. If they are not the same thing we have more confusion than ever, having two definitions of a "Canadian citizen", one in the Immigration Act and

this new one, in addition to all the confusion arising out of the interlocking of Canadian citizenship with British nationality, a subject with which I intend to deal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. gentleman will permit a question, did I understand him to say that when this bill is passed the defiini-tion of citizenship will continue to be found in the Immigration Act?


Maxime Raymond: I do not know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can tell him it will not.
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie); The minister has already said that he intends to bring in an amendment, but for the time being we are dealing with this bill. It is the only bill before parliament, and we must deal with it and with the Immigration Act as it is, as long as it is not amended.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We can do only one thing at a time.


Maxime Raymond: Consequently I fail to see that this bill as it is now will achieve the first purpose enunciated by the minister, and I venture to say that it is rather a consolidation of the Naturalization Act and the Canadian Nationals Act under the new title.
I now come to the main purpose of the bill, which is to give Canada one of the symbols of nationhood. Everyone who is proud of his country, who believes, as has been repeated time and again, that Canada is a sovereign country, was delighted to hear that at last Canadians were to have a citizenship distinct from that of any other country, a real Canadian citizenship, recorded in the statute books. Unfortunately we are yet far from the realization of that; and the minister took pains to explain that there was a change and at the same time there was no change in our statute. At this stage I do not intend to go into the details of the measure. I shall have another opportunity to do so, but what I wish to emphasize to-night is this. While the bill is supposed to be for the purpose of clearly defining Canadian citizenship or national status in this country, and to avoid confusion, it offers a Canadian citizenship completely mixed up with British nationality, when the two should be considered as entirely different. Take section 26, which says:
A Canadian citizen is a British subject.
If a Canadian citizen is a British subject, as stated in the bill, he has a dual nationality which is inadmissible in principle. Then where is the symbol of nationhood, which was referred to so eloquently by the Secretary of

Canadian Citizenship
State? Canada is a nation, a sovereign nation. The United Kingdom is another sovereign nation. Both are equal in status. Citizen-ship<means membership in a sovereign nation. When a man chooses to become the subject of a country by naturalization he automatically ceases to be a subject of the nation to which he belonged before naturalization. In acquiring a new nationality, he loses the one he had. Nobody will contest this. A Canadian citizen cannot be at the same time a British subject, because there cannot be dual or multiple citizenship or nationality. An individual cannot be a member of two nations at once. It is inadmissible and a well settled principle. Let me refer to one authority in the matter, namely Cleveland on "American citizenship." Here is what he says:
Dual nationality irreconcilable
Owing to the fact that every independent, politically organized, national group has always reserved the right of determining its own membership, conflicts of law have developed and in these conflicts the question of dual nationality has been raised. That such a thing as dual national citizenship must not and cannot possibly exist is quite a well-settled principle now. Morse says, "That any one should be a member of two nations at once is inadmissible in principle . . . An individual cannot be at one and the same time a citizen of two states; and as a general proposition an individual can have only one allegiance . . . The fact is, any doctrine which recognizes a double citizenship or nationality attempts to perpetuate a political hybrid, which is as abnormal and monstrous as its prototype in the natural world." This principle is an old one, first applied in the ancient city republics as we read from Cicero. "According to our civil Taw no one can be a citizen of two cities at the same time; a man cannot be a citizen of this city who has dedicated himself to another city." It would seem absurd on the face of it, for, -as Wood!) urn says, how can the allegiance and service of a particular individual be claimed by more than one country? "As a man cannot serve two masters, so two nations may not claim a citizen's allegiance . . .
It is certain that a 'double allegiance' cannot be tolerated in America. Subjects of European nations who come to this country, take the oath of allegiance to America and become naturalized citizens, cannot be allowed to acknowledge allegiance to any European nation. Such 'hyphenated citizens' would be dangerous in any country. Loyalty to America is expected of all."
The fact of being a citizen of a country involves rights and duties. As a man cannot serve two masters, so two nations may not claim a citizen's allegiance. What is the full meaning of section 26? It means that an individual cannot be a Canadian subject without being a British subject. This creates a dual nationality.
By this bill, the quality of Canadian citizenship is reserved to those who are willing to become British subjects with all the consequences of being subjects of another nation, with the obligations, duties and so on derived from it. If a newcomer-a Pole, Swiss, Ukrainian, Chinese, Frenchman, Belgian- chooses Canada as his new country to live in he cannot become a Canadian subject without accepting to become a British subject with all its consequent obligations. This is the meaning of section 26, and the Secretary of State *when he spoke on October 22, admitted the fact. I quote his words as they appear in Hansard at page 1336:
A person who is hereafter born a Canadian citizen will thereby also be a British subject. An alien who comes to Canada and is naturalized as a Canadian citizen will similarly become a British subject.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, gives as much im

portance to British nationality as it does to Canadian nationality. It submerges it in British nationality. An effect of double patriotism or double loyalty has been shown in the espionage investigation now in progress. The report of the royal commission refers to the fact that some of those accused have stated that they have a patriotism higher than their patriotism to Canada. The report of the commission says:
In a case of this nature where evidence has revealed the existence of on organization, constituting at least a threat to the safety and interests of the state, as evidenced by the fact that some witnesses, holding strategic positions have made the significant statement under oath, that they had a loyalty which took priority over the loyalty owed by them to their own country, and for that reason they acted as they did, and. would unquestionably have continued so to act,, had they not been detected, we are of opinion that should these persons be allowed communication with outsiders or between themselves until their activities have been fully investigated* some of the basic purposes of this inquiry would be entirely defeated.
Can one find a better example of the consequences of having double loyalty? A British subject must serve the interests of Great Britain first, and a Canadian citizen must serve the interest of Canada first.
On October 12, 1937, at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Montreal, on the occasion of the annual dinner of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the late Lord Tweeds-muir, then Governor General of Canada, made the following declaration:
Canada is a sovereign nation, and cannot take her attitude to the world docilely from Britain, or from the United States, or from anybedy else. A Canadian's first loyalty is not to the British commonwealth of nations but to Canada, and Canada's king, and those who deny this are doing, to my mind, a great disservice to the commonwealth.
What the Governor General of Canada said was not the promulgation of a new idea. It
Canadian Citizenship

was entirely in accord with the spirit and the letter of the statute of Westminster proclaimed in 1931.
It is the duty of a citizen of a country to promote the interest of his country first. His patriotism cannot be divided. In Canada the duty of a Canadian citizen is to promote the interest of Canada. But if a. Canadian citizen is at the same time the subject of another country, he will have to promote the interest of both countries, and if those interests are in opposite ways, in what position would he be? That is why dual nationality cannot exist.
I come now to the third purpose; that is to sayt, to promote national unity. On October 22, the minister concluded his statement by saying:
New Canadians should all be made to feel that they, like the rest of us, are Canadians, citizens of a great country ... For the national unity of Canada, and for the future and greatness of this country, it is felt to be of 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 am a Canadian citizen."
I agree entirely with that statement, but I ask the minister how he can create that spirit with this bill which means that a Canadian must serve two masters, that he must have a dual nationality with all the, consequences. You will find that nowhere else. You will not find in the nationality act of any sovereign country such a provision as appears in section 26 of this bill which provides that a citizen of a country is the subject of another country.
I have here the Irish nationality and citizenship act-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit me to observe that this bill does not provide that anyone shall be a subject of any country but this country. Under this bill we would not be a subject of the government of Great Britain. Being a British subject does not imply that at all.


Maxime Raymond: A moment ago I quoted the exact words of the minister when he spoke on October 22 last. He said that the moment a man became a Canadian citizen he became a British subject. He would then assume British nationality and would have to obey the laws of Great Britain because he is a British subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Maxime Raymond: Certainly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not mean that at all.


Maxime Raymond: I have here the Irish nationality and citizenship act of 1935. An Irish citizen is an Irish citizen or a naturalized Irish, and no more. The same applies to the American, the Mexican, the Swiss and the Belgian citizen. The population of Switzerland is composed of the people of three races, French, Italian and German. You do not call a Swiss a German citizen or a French citizen or an Italian citizen, you call him a Swiss citizen. An American is called an American; he is not called a German subject or an Italian subject or the subject of any other country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nor is a Canadian.


Maxime Raymond: He is referred to as an American and as a subject of America. How can we be proud of being a citizen of a country when we declare that we are only a particular type of citizen of another country? If we want to promote national unity in this country we must have one nationality, which is Canadian nationality, and not a dual or double nationality. There must be the one loyalty to our country and not a loyalty toward any other country.
What we are doing by this bill is to design, not a Canadian citizen but one type of British subject which will be called a Canadian citizen, like the citizens of Papua are one type of British subject. Unfortunately some are more British than Canadian and this bill as it is now framed would contribute to maintain the ambiguity and disunity.
In conclusion, I say that if this bill becomes law we shall not have a definition of Canadian citizenship that will be any more clear than the one we had before. We shall not have that symbol of nationhood which is lacking in Canada at the present time, as was stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he spoke in Winnipeg last May. Worse than that, we shall be taking a step backward. This bill adds little if anything to what we had already on our statute books and constitutes a renunciation of our sovereignty.
We are now in the year 1946. Since 1931 we have been recognized as a sovereign nation, equal in status with the United Kingdom. Before that date we did not have the powers which we now have. The Immigration Act of 1910, the Naturalization Act of 1914 and the Canadian Nationals Act of 1921 were passed before 1931, at a time when we practically had the status of a colony or the equivalent thereof and when we certainly had not the powers of an autonomous state. As a matter of fact our Naturalization Act of 1914 was passed to concur with the British Nationality Act of 1914. According to the statute

Canadian Citizenship
of Westminster we were granted the power to repeal any existing act passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom in so far as the same was part of our laws, and also the power to make laws having extraterritorial operation.
Subsequently to the statute of Westminster the parliament of Ireland in 1935, exercising the powers of a sovereign state granted by the statute of Westminster, enacted the Irish nationality and citizenship act which is a real citizenship act. Under that act an Irish citizen is not called a British subject; he is a subject of Ireland. Section 33 of that act says:
The British nationality and status of aliens act, 1914, and the British nationality and status of aliens act, 1918, if and so far as they respectively are or ever were in force in Saorstat Eireann, are hereby repealed.
Ireland exercised its. power as a sovereign state, but what are we doing in Canada?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Are you distinguishing
between Ireland and Eire, which is the Irish Free State? If not, I think your argument would be much clearer if you would. Are you including the six Ulster counties in your statement?


Maxime Raymond: I am quoting from the statute of Ireland. On one side that is printed in Gaelic and on the other side it is printed in English. On the English side, instead of using 'the word "Ireland" they say "Saorstat Eireann".


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The south of Ireland would like to call themselves Ireland, but they have not yet reached that stage.


Maxime Raymond: They belong to the commonwealth of nations.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Eire?


Maxime Raymond: Yes. What are we doing here in Canada? Under the smoke-screen of the title of this bill, "Canadian citizenship", which sounds very well, we are simply reenacting in other terms the same laws of colonial spirit which were already on our statute books. There is no sweeping change, as the minister said the other day, What was not objectionable in 1910 or 1915 or 1921, when we were not a sovereign nation, is now objectionable since the passage of the statute of Westminster in 1931 when we were officially recognized as a sovereign nation.
This bill, which recognizes that we have no distinct nationality, that we are purely and simply a particular class of British subject called a Canadian citizen, is the negation of our sovereignty; it is a' renunciation of our
sovereignty; it is a step backward. If we are worthy of being a nation we should be satisfied only with a nationality of our own, not one mixed with that of any other country. Far from being a symbol of nationhood, this bill as it now reads is a symbol of colonialism. I hope the Secretary of State will modify it. All we want is a real Canadian citizenship, a distinctive citizenship, not a mere shadow of Canadian citizenship. We are and we want to be purely and simply Canadian subjects. We want to inscribe in our statutes an act which will assure any suitable man coming into Canada that he will enjoy all the privileges of a Canadian citizen and that he will assume no other obligations than those which are due to his new country, Canada.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is perfectly true to say that we have in the bill now before the house a measure which is generally acceptable to all parties in the house. There are certain aspects of this bill which I shall not hesitate to criticize, but I could not proceed without joining at the outset with my hon. friends in all parts of the chamber who welcome this occasion when the achievement of the status of citizenship .by the Canadian people has finally been recognized.
I do not wish to detain the house unnecessarily, so at the outset I shall define the purpose of my remarks. What I have to say can be dealt with under three heads: first, the attributes of citizenship itself; second, citizenship in Canada with relation to the larger idea involved in the words "British subject"; and, third, the possible expansions and protection of citizenship in Canada.
With respect to the first of these, that is the attributes of citizenship, as I say, we have here a bill which finally recognizes the status of Canadian citizenship. At the same time it prescribes who may become citizens, and how, and what qualifications they must possess. This brings up the question of whether or not certain classes or groups of people should ever be barred from or admitted as groups to citizenship; and it is this problem which I propose to deal with first. There is such a group whose fate remains to be decided in Canada to-day. I refer to the Japanese in Canada. This problem has been raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), and no truer words were ever uttered than when he said that the problem must be settled before this bill becomes law. If the bill becomes law before the Japanese problem is settled it means that these people, having resided in Canada for more than five years, can make application to become citizens. Many of them have resided
Canadian Citizenship

here for twenty, twenty-five, thirty and more years without becoming Canadian citizens. Consequently I feel we cannot allow this bill to afford an excuse by the government, as the hon. member for Vancouver South said, to yield to that pressure which is being applied to it by, I submit with all respect, uninformed and unenlightened groups in the country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A very small minority, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Japanese in Canada fall into two main groups, those born in Japan and entering Canada subsequently, and those born in Canada itself. The first group is further subdivided into those naturalized after their entry into Canada and those who have not yet been naturalized. It is the first group, that is those born in Japan and subsequently entering Canada, with which I propose to deal mainly this evening. It was mainly with this group that the orders in council passed last December dealt. Those orders in council have been reviewed by the hon. member for Vancouver South. They provide that Japanese nationals who had made application would be repatriated to Japan. That was the announced policy of the government on December 15. I might point out to the house here a matter which I think should receive explanation. That is that, of those who applied to go back, some 5,000 have not yet revoked their decision and the order for their deportation was not ruled invalid by the supreme court. I am very much interested in knowing, why those 5,000 have not been already sent, and I should like particularly to hear that they have been sent before this bill becomes law.
The authorities for the orders in council themselves are contained actually in the War Measures Act and, since the first of this year, in the Emergency Powers Act. Most of the criticisms directed against the government for its policy are that this deportation is proposed to be carried out under order in council. It is represented to us that such a procedure is a horrible state of affairs; that to deprive people of their citizenship-that is the way it is put-by order in council, is a hideous crime. I submit to hon. members that this is not a true picture. Most of the people affected are not citizens of Canada; that is the first thing. They are not being deprived of their citizenship by order in council. I would be among the first to object to such a step. The second thing is that there exist on the statute books of this country many authorities, much legislation, giving authority to revoke naturalization by order in council. It is not a new thing dreamed up by somebody to deal with a new situation. There

are on the statute books of this country to-day precedents for that sort of thing existing for many years.
I should like to refer to the Naturalization Act, chapter 138 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, which has been under discussion in connection with this bill. Section 9, summarized, reads as follows: The governor general shall by order revoke a certificate of naturalization in any case in which he is on the report of the minister satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted remains, according to the law of a state at war with His Majesty, a subject of that state. I cite that because we know for a fact that many of the Japanese who came to this country and had children born in this country registered those births at the Japanese consulate. The Japanese government made it compulsory for them to do so up to the year 1924; after that time it was optional with them to register their births at the Japanese consulate. We have heard a good deal here to-night about "dual nationality" and "dual citizenship"; but I submit to hon. members that there is a clear case where, the birth having been registered at the Japanese consulate, the child was a subject of Japan and therefore a subject of a state at war with His Majesty; and then, according to this statute, there exists all the authority which any minister could want for passing an order revoking naturalization and issuing an order for deportation.
In the same act we find section 10:
Where a certificate of naturalization is revoked the governor in council may upon the recommendation of the minister by order direct that the wife and minor children, or any of them, of the person whose certificate is revoked shall cease to be British subjects, and any such person shall thereupon become an alien.
A great to-do is made, in these papers which have been referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South, as to the terrible thing which is being done to the wives and children of these people. I cite that section to show that there is authority on the statute books of this country for taking that action. I think hon. members and the people generally should bear this in mind also when dealing with this matter, that the weight of evidence is to the effect that many of the Japanese evicted by these orders of deportation were certainly not subjects or citizens, nor were they loyal Canadians. That being the case, there is nothing horrible, new or deceitful in passing these orders in council. As I say, I feel that the reason it is important to point this matter out is, to some extent, to combat the wave of hysteria and ill-considered agitation which is sweeping the country against these orders in council.

Canadian Citizenship
However, the orders have been questioned, and perhaps the method adopted need not have been followed. The Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) could have passed an order revoking the naturalization of every individual. There is a statute giving authority for sudh a procedure. But although the method has been criticized, presumably the government's attitude and policy are still the same. The policy has not been revoked, certainly not in such a manner as to be known to the people. That policy was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and by my good friend the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), Who comes from British Columbia and who, in fact, is vitally concerned to see that the policy is carried out since his resignation is at stake, and I am not too sure about those vacancies in the senate. We are here in a most unusual role to-night-to offer assistance, even to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Labour, and to help them to carry out the policy. If they feel, however, that the matter is sub judice, that they cannot carry it out under the order in council, then I say that they should introduce a measure into this house. As a matter of fact, I feel that this house is the place where the whole question should be discussed and not only in Mr. Sandwell's paper, or by delegations appearing before the Prime Minister. It should be discussed in this house.
In this respect, as has been said before, I suggest that there are two things to which a member must give heed. First, he has to say what he feels to be right, and, second, he has to try to interpret what he thinks his constituents wish. Sometimes there may be a conflict between the two. If that conflict arises, then it is the member's duty still to say what he thinks to be right. At the next election he will be tried by his constituents. If they do not agree, well, we live in a democracy and that is the verdict of democracy. That is the correct way to go about the matter.
In this case, however, I find no such conflict. I believe that for certain reasons, namely, because the Japanese are not assimilable and by their actions they have shown that they were not loyal Canadian subjects, as evidenced by registration of births at the Japanese consulate, and many other actions which they perpetrated after the war broke out wdth Japan, as well as for a number of reasons which have been summarized in this house before, they should be sent away, and I believe that my constituents feel the same way. They do not like them and they do not want them. The people of British Columbia do not want to have them, and
we are willing to present our case to the House of Commons, have the matter discussed here and have an act passed in this highest court of the land, higher than the Supreme Court of Canada, so that if it is the verdict of the Canadian people that our case is justified, the Japanese can be deported.
I felt it important to deal with that question because it involves a matter which is vital to the ideal of Canadian citizenship.
I should like next to deal with the question of Canadian citizenship as it affects all Canadians, and particularly as it is connected with the question of citizenship within the empire. I listened carefully to the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Outre-mont (Mr. Rinfret), and as I followed what he said it occurred to me that he-and very probably the same is true of a good many of those whom I may call his compatriots on the other side of the house-is proceeding under a misconception of what is involved in the words "British subject". It seems to me that the hon. member by his attitude showed that he felt that the words "British subject" mean that a person who is a British subject owes allegiance to the country, Great Britain. That is to say, that he is in some respects and in some manner a subject of England. That is what I thought was in the hon. member's mind, and it was that which, I believed, caused him to oppose and- to criticize bitterly section 26 which states that a Canadian citizen is a British subject. He said in so many words as I recall them, that a Canadian citizen should owe allegiance to the empire through the crown and' not owe allegiance to the crown through Great Britain. Those, I believe, were substantially the words he used in one passage. To my mind, that proves conclusively that the hon. gentleman feels that 'being a British subject, as the words are used in this act, means being a subject of Great Britain.
Let us analyse what is involved in being a British subject. I submit that it means nothing more or less than being a citizen of the British empire. A citizen of the British empire may be a citizen of Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada, or South Africa, or the United Kingdom. We are all citizens of the empire, citizens of the commonwealth, and we are all equal. If hon. members have anything to say I should be glad if they would speak up.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: What about India?


Edmund Davie Fulton: India is not a member of the British commonwealth.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: A subject race.
Canadian Citizenship


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: They keep it white.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They do not have any Japanese.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They keep it white, apparently, but it is done under their immigration act. They restrict immigrants, but I understand they granted the status of British subject to Samoans who are not white.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They have no
C.C.F. either.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That makes it a lot easier for them. I continue with the quotation. At page 938 he said:
I never denied at any time the attraction of the adoption of the principle of a Britannic citizenship-the right to say, "I am a citizen of the British empire."
That is how New Zealand looks at the matter. As I said, I examined the statutes of Australia, and I could find there no provision similar to that which is sought to be introduced into Canada by this bill, namely, that a British subject coming from any other part of the empire would have to be naturalized all over again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit me to correct him or to make my point? I am sure he will. A non-Canadian British subject coming to Canada does not in any circumstance lose his status as a British subject; this bill does not interfere with the status at all of British subjects, under such circumstances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot accept that for a moment, Mr. Speaker. What are we interested in? We are interested in citizenship. We want everybody who comes to Canada to be a citizen.


Mr. PROBE:: No, you do not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want every suitable person who comes to Canada to be a citizen. Before a person coming into Canada under this bill [DOT] can become a citizen he has to go through a naturalization process, no matter what his status.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That does not mean he loses his status as a British subject.

Canadian Citizenship


Edmund Davie Fulton: What value is his status as a British subject if he has to go through naturalization to become a Canadian citizen? I shall deal further with this point as I go along, because I wish to deal with it at some length. This concept of being a British subject is, in my view, as-1 have said, the only approach that we have yet had to the idea of a world citizenship, a common citizenship throughout the world. Up to the present time it is to be found only in the British empire.
In support of my general thesis I should like to cite the present Prime Minister in a statement made in 1920 when he was leader of the opposition. On March 16, 1920, one of the peace treaties came up for ratification. There was submitted by the Borden government to the house at that time a resolution advocating ratification of this treaty by Canada. Among the reasons submitted was that Canada had achieved national status and that her signature as a nation was required to this treaty. On that occasion the then leader of the opposition took over an hour to deal with the question of Canada's status as a nation and to show that this was not a thing that was achieved overnight by the then administration but had been a growth ever since 1867, just as we have said that this status of Canadian citizenship is not a thing achieved overnight, but has been a growth ever since 1857. It is something which must be preserved and fostered and should.not be allowed to be detracted from by diminishing our status as world citizens. This is what the leader of the opposition said at that time as reported at page 473 of Hansard-.
We believe . . . that it is possible for the British empire to become, as regards the league of nations, a league within a league, if you like, for the preservation of freedom amongst the different nations of the world. That position will be maintained by the attitude of conference and cooperation.


John Bracken: Who was the leader of the opposition at that time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The leader of the opposition at that time was the right hon. gentleman who is Prime Minister at the present time.
What I have in mind is that to-day we hear a great deal about the necessity for the concept of world citizenship. As I have said, the only approach we have so far in this world to-day is this common citizenship which we have in the British empire. I repeat that under section 10 the common citizenship which we have is rendered valueless in so far as it concerns a British subject coming from any part of the empire into Canada. I realize that the minister disagrees with me.
Perhaps we cannot reach agreement on that point. I leave it to the hon. mmbers and to the country to decide.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit me? I am sorry to have to interrupt, but this is an important matter. I know the hon. gentleman is trying to give it his best study, but I would not want it to go out that if a non-Canadian British subject comes into this country and does not take advantage of section 10 he thereby ceases to be a British subject. Once he comes into this country as a British subject he remains a British subject, whether or not he takes out citizenship in this country. Surely that is the fact.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suppose it cannot be denied that this bill does not contain any provision revoking the status of a non-Canadian British subject coming into this country, saying that he shall cease to be a British subject, But, after all, the thing which this bill is directed toward is the establishment and clarification of the status of Canadian citizenship. In doing that it says that any person coming into this country who wants to become a Canadian citizen must be naturalized. It makes no exception in the case of a British subject. Therefore a British subject who wishes to become a Canadian citizen must be naturalized.
The minister has not yet said, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), whether it is intended to make the franchise hinge on becoming a Canadian citizen. I submit it is quite proper and would be quite proper, and I think it is inherent in the minister's remarks, for him to say that the status of citizenship will from now on determine all our civil rights, and that a person must be a Canadian citizen. Although the minister has not said that, all his colleagues behind him who have so far spoken on this said that everybody must become Canadian citizens.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You must not put into my mouth words I did not say. This is a difficult matter, and one should not overgeneralize. I made no such remark. When we come to deal with the section I shall deal with the question the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) put to me the other day, but which the Speaker, relying on the rules of the house, precluded me from answering.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I admit that the minister has not yet said it, and I ask him to do me the courtesy of not accusing me of putting words into his mouth, when I was careful not to do that; I said the minister had not yet said it.
Canadian Citizenship


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry; I would not be discourteous to anybody.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To get on with my point, it is this. At present we have an empire citizenship., A Canadian citizen who is a British subject can go to any other part of the empire and become a citizen of that part by virtue of the fact that he is a British subject. By this bill we in Canada are seeking at one stroke to cut away that world-wide aspect of the status of a British subject, because a British subject who comes here is no longer automatically a citizen. He is not and cannot be a citizen until he becomes naturalized.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is not now a citizen
automatically and this has been the law for twenty-five years. Under the existing act a non-Canadian British subject-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not wish to be discourteous,. but at the moment it is obvious that the minister and I cannot agree on this point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has
given me permission to say this, Mr. Speaker. Under the present law the non-Canadian British subject must reside in Canada for five years before becoming a citizen under the immigration Act. That has been the law of the land for over twenty-five years, in this and practically every dominion of t'he commonwealth-before he can acquire domicile under the Canadian Immigration Act, which is the only existing definition of citizenship in this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not mind allowing the minister to ask a question, but when he proceeds to make a speech and to quote the Immigration Act when I am referring to the electoral act and the right to vote and the right to be a citizen, then I must say I cannot allow the minister to go on ahy longer. I am talking about the essence of citizenship; I cannot be any clearer than that, and I submit that it will be denied to a British subject when this bill becomes law. At one stroke, by one arrant gesture of isolationism, Canada is throwing aside and cutting dowm the one approach that has yet been made to a world citizenship.


An hon. MEMBER:: Beating a dead horse!


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not beating the C.C.F. yet; then I would be beating a dead horse.

The third subject to which I wish to address myself briefly to-night is the question of the enlargement or expansion of Canadian citizenship. Here I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who first brought this subject to my attention at least and who, I think, has taken the lead in bringing it to the attention of this house and of the country generally. He has brought to the attention of the house in a most forceful manner all through the years he has been here the dangerous threats to our citizenship and to our liberty which are inherent in the present trend of government. Speaking in this house on this bill a day or two ago he said he felt that the minister should proceed further. He has now introduced a bill which seeks to clarify the status of Canadian citizenship, and the hon. member felt the minister should go further and that he or some member of the government should introduce a bill of rights which would safeguard forever the privileges which are ours when we acquire Canadian citizenship.
I submit that the time has come when this country does need a bill of rights. I do not want to labour the point, but we have heard a great deal about a forgotten order in council. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) rose in their places and told us that an order in council had been passed. We heard them describe their reluctance to accept that order in council, which infringed upon the rights of Canadians, and we heard them say that after it had been passed they forgot it. Some journalist-this is not an original expression with me-permitted himself to wonder-and I just say I share his amazement, since these two powerful individuals were so opposed to the passage of that order in council-just who it was got around them and persuaded them to pass it. Perhaps, this journalist said, it was the office boy. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is time we had a bill of rights which would safeguard us against the malevolent influences of office boys, if that is the way this country is run.
On the general subject, we have heard a great deal about citizenship. It is a magnificent concept and one which I submit is worth safeguarding. Human experience shows that we are apt to forget the lessons of the struggle for liberty; that liberty rests so easily on the shoulders of the people, is so welcome, so acceptable, that the necessity for constant watchfulness to preserve it is easily forgotten. Therefore it seems that we should take every

Canadian Citizenship
precaution to make sure that we can wear safely and lightly that mantle of liberty, that cloak which is ours -by virtue of our citizenship. We should safeguard it by introducing a bill of rights.
Finally, I wish to leave this thought with the house. I should have liked to conclude my remarks with a few words in French, 'but I did not actually expect to speak this evening, and I do not yet trust myself to speak in French to this distinguished chamber without first preparing my remarks. But I should like in closing to leave this thought with the house, that the first and perhaps still the greatest Canadian was the man who united Canada in confederation, 1867. The next great Canadian will be the man who truly reunites Canada at any time in the future.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Much that has been said on this subject has been very interesting to me, and some of it practically fascinating, but it is perhaps unfortunate that whenever an important measure of this kind comes before this house the discussion seems to overflow into all sorts of by-paths and side-lines which really have nothing to do 'with the measure. I would not want to interfere with anyone's right to express an opinion, nor would I take any exception to opinions expressed, but I respectfully submit that much of the discussion we heiTrd to-night was not on the bill; it was not even on the beam.
I do not believe there is anything sinister or omnious about this bill. It has not been sprung upon us suddenly, as last night some hon. gentleman said another measure was sprung on us. This bill was introduced in very much the same form last year, and hon. members have had an opportunity of studying it and carefully considering its implications ever since last fall. I do not always agree with the government; more often than not I disagree. This time I think the minister is to be complimented on the work he has done. I believe this bill is something the people of this country have wanted. I have no hesitation in expressing my approval of it, and I think the same can be said of all hon. members of our group, because it happens that a Canadian citizenship was one of the things we included in our party platform. Therefore we feel that we have a mandate from the people who sent us here, to support such a measure. But even if there were not I would still feel it is the general opinion of the people of Canada that there is no harm at the present time-and certainly there are great possibilities of good-in having
on the statute books something which will give us officially an opportunity to call ourselves Canadians in every respect. I do not see anything there to quarrel about.
There may be details that will have to be changed. I believe that the hon. member who sits in front of me has some amendments which he will propose when we get into com mittee. But we are now speaking to the principle of the bill, and I believe that principle is one which is acceptable to all sides of the house.
I do mot think we should engage in histrionics or emotional outbursts in respect of measures which require as much cooperation and unity as we say this one does. I want particularly to compliment the officials who drew up the bill, and also the minister, upon having included in it a provision for instruction and education- in citizenship. I believe that if these provisions are carried out properly and if sufficient money is appropriated to make it possible to do this work, with a view to impressing upon those who are becoming naturalized just what privileges and rights are involved and, what is more important, the responsibilities which go with citizenship, that will be money and time well spent.
This is something which has been needed for a long time. I also suggest to the minister and the house that in future it might be wise to provide all immigrants with a pamphlet setting out in an understandable form the status of aliens. They must understand their position, and a pamphlet of that kind would help keep them out of trouble, and help them to appreciate the advantages, responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. It would help them along that road from the status of alien to that of citizen, step by step. The immigrant would be able to compare his position upon entry into the country with that far more advantageous position he can ocupy if he makes an effort toward improving his position.
I would also suggest that in future we make greater use of our facilities for adult education. I am referring particularly to rural and semirural areas, where most of the immigration finds its way. I can say from experience that in those areas there are many schoolteachers who would be only too happy to provide evening classes for immigrant children and adults so that they might have the first elements and rudiments of democracy, citizenship, and the Canadian way of life.
I have had some practical experience in that respect. I taught in a district where there was a group of immigrants, and during a couple
Canadian Citizenship

of winters I conducted classes in which adult education was taught. I can assure the house that not only was it advantageous to them, but it was a great education to me to have an opportunity to interpret to them the Canadian way of life. In>
that way I got a better appreciation of it myself.
In concluding, let me say that if we are to reach that stage of unity which all seem so anxious to attain, I believe we shall do it best and most effectively by emphasizing in the house those things we have in common, rather than those which seem to divide us. It is for that reason that I was not very happy while the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was speaking this evening. I should not like to say anything that would offend him, because I have great admiration for his ability. I felt, however, that during part of his speech he was getting into territory that did not bring any advantage to this discussion or to the political group with which he is affiliated.
In particular, he attempted to make a case against people who have resided in this country for twenty years or more, who have been granted citizenship or naturalization without having to have a knowledge of English or French. I would be the last to suggest that they should not be motivated toward learning either of the two official languages; or, still better, both of them. But with respect, may I submit to him, that there are people in Canada, some of whom I know personally, who have contributed a great deal to the development of this country, but who have had no opportunity to learn either of the official languages.
For instance, I know a lady-and now she is fairly old-who sent six of her sons to the last war. Most of them did not come back. She does not know how to speak either English or French. Would the hon. member for Vancouver South say that she is not entitled to vote, after that sacrifice and that contribution to Canada? Her case could be multiplied by the hundreds, probably by the thousands, and I suggest that before we take a narrow' or intolerant view, we should take careful thought, lest we offend far more people than we have dreamed of.
I am not accusing the hon. member; I am simply pointing out that if we want unity and cooperation we must be prepared to go at least half way.
On motion of Mr.- Fleming the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Monday, April 8, 1946.