1959-02-05

MAIN ESTIMATES, 1959-60

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1960, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the main estimates for the fiscal year 1959-60. Following the example set by my predecessor, Mr. Abbott, in 1950, 1951 and 1954 I propose to make a statement to the house now for the purpose of drawing to the attention of hon. members certain significant features of these estimates.
The most noteworthy feature is that compared with those for the present year, 195859, these estimates provide for a decrease of $39.1 million in the non-statutory items. This decrease reverses a trend of some years' duration. I am glad to report to the house that although this reduction was not accomplished without painstaking effort it has been achieved without any reduction in essential services to the public.
The second significant feature of these estimates is that the government has maintained the level of expenditure designed to assist national development and employment opportunities. Thus it may be seen that in its approach to the financial requirements in the fiscal year commencing April 1 next the government has endeavoured to maintain and foster a high degree of economic activity on the one hand and to exercise the restraint and balance necessary in coping with the inflationary aspects of recovery on the other hand.
Total budgetary expenses contemplated in the estimates for the new fiscal year amount to $5,595,848,557. This total, which includes both expenditures already authorized by continuing statutes and moneys parliament is being asked to appropriate, is compared in the blue book with a total of $5,295.6 million which was the sum provided for in the main, supplementary and further supplementary estimates No. 1 for the current year. Since the main estimates for 1959-60 were printed there have been tabled in the 66968-9-45
house further supplementary estimates No. 2, providing for additional expenditures in the present fiscal year of $28 million, so that the comparable total for 1958-59 now becomes $5,323.6 million, resulting in an over-all increase of $272.2 million. These figures do not include amounts for deficits in the old age security fund, since it is the practice to make such provision in the final supplementary estimates.
The government's approach to the task of preparing the 1959-60 estimates may be of interest to the house. Last year in order to provide employment the government deliberately favoured expenditure which would provide work through construction programs of a capital nature. This year we have expedited and encouraged programs which will provide work this winter. But we have been careful to ensure that we do not add to or extend a program which would build up government overhead without creating immediate employment. On all other items in the estimates our aim has been to apply a firm hand in restraining controllable expenditure without sacrificing essential public services.
There is an increase of $311.3 million in the estimates in the statutory area. It is attributable substantially to two or three items. First is the sum of $160 million for payments to the provinces under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. The second is an increase of $106 million for statutory public debt charges. This increase may be attributed in approximately equal measure to the increase in the total public debt outstanding and higher rates of interest. In the third place is an increase of $25 million for family allowances, due to the increase in the numbers of those eligible, and $9 million for unemployment assistance attributable to the expected lag in the settlement of claims relating to the current fiscal year.
The over-all decrease of $39.1 million in the non-statutory items was achieved in spite of an increase of $88 million in the cost of administration and operation of all departments. This increase of $88 million is attributable to four items: first, an increase of $20 million in civil salaries and wages; second, an increase of $22 million in the pay and allowances of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; third, an increase of $19 million in the cost of repairs and upkeep of equipment; and

Tabling of Main Estimates fourth, smaller increases spread over a number of other items due principally to rising costs.
Notwithstanding the increases of $42 million in salaries and wages and pay and allowances, there has been no appreciable expansion in the strength of the civil service of Canada or of the defence forces. While additional responsibilities have been assumed, the overall increase in the size of the government establishment for 1959-60 will be only .4 per cent over 1958-59. This is the smallest annual growth shown since 1951. It demonstrates the government's continuing effort to increase efficiency and at the same time to economize on the use of staff.
The principal factor in the increases in expenditures for administration is the fact that, in addition to the normal effect of reclassification and annual increases, there has been a continuation of the trend toward improved recruiting into the public service and armed forces, and toward lower rates of turnover within the authorized establishment. This has been particularly noticeable in relation to technical and professional grades which are being attracted into the public service within the approved staff strength.
The third factor, namely $19 million for repairs and upkeep of equipment, reflects an intensification of government programs of maintenance and repair.
Another factor contributing to the increased cost of administration is an amount of $8.9 million for travel and removal expenses, notably in national defence. Expenditures under this head are higher in certain years to meet the requirements for larger scale movement of forces. In the forthcoming year a large part of the brigade will be replaced in Europe in the normal rotation pattern.
The capital program reveals an over-all decrease in contemplated expenditure of $65 million. However, it is anticipated that the level of capital expenditure achieved in the current year by most of the civil departments will be maintained, particularly in those areas where expenditures are related to resource development and to employment, such as the departments of agriculture, mines and technical surveys, and northern affairs and national resources. The capital provision for the Department of Public Works is reduced in consequence of the accelerated completion of many public buildings and the inevitable time lag in the completion of plans for new projects. The provision in the Department of Transport, however, will remain at the present high level which has been established to meet the urgent requirements of civil aviation. The decline in the capital program of the public works department is largely offset

by the provisions for the Department of Transport. Thus the government is maintaining a high volume of national works to continue the battle against unemployment.
The requirements of the Department of National Defence on capital account are also reduced. Expenditures in this area, apart from new requirements, are governed by the progress of various long-term defence projects.
Parliament is being asked to provide for loans, investments and advances-which add to the government's active assets-totalling $122,887,799 in addition to those for which continuing authority exists.
Not included in the figures I have thus far mentioned, but noted in the volume of estimates for consideration, are the forecast amounts for old age security pension payments totalling $577,600,000. These payments are not treated as budgetary expenditures since they are payable out of the old age security fund.
The house will see that in planning its spending program for 1959-60 the government sought, within the limits of controllable expenditure, to restrain inflation while at the same time assisting employment and the development of resources.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill):
That the message of His Excellency, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, not having had the advantage of an opportunity to study the minister's statement and the estimates which have just been tabled, it is impossible for me to comment at any length at this time on those estimates. But in view of what the minister has said perhaps it is appropriate for us on this side of the house to point out that the amount of the decrease in controllable expenditures, which seems to be about $32 million-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is $39.1 million.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -as the minister points out, $39.1 million, is a small amount indeed compared with the figure of $500 million which we used to hear advanced by those now on the other side of the house as to what could be done about reducing controllable expenditures without interfering with essential services. While, of course, we welcome that reduction if it does not interfere with any essential services, it is only fitting to point out that in these estimates, which I think are the highest peacetime estimates in our

history-and the minister will correct me if I am wrong-there is an increase of $272 million over last year, not taking into account the increase of $22 million in expenditures from the old age security fund.
The minister has also emphasized, Mr. Speaker, that the civil service salaries and allowances have been kept well in check. I would point out, however, that during the year there has been an increase of some 4,000 in the number of civil servants, a fact which also is interesting in the light of what hon. gentlemen opposite used to say about reducing the number of civil servants.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is confused there.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Oh, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest that these estimates which have been put before us emphasize the desirability of the budget being brought down in order to deal with them at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) we did not have the estimates before us until just a few minutes ago. I would make the suggestion to the government that in future, when the minister makes a very long and comprehensive statement on this subject, it would be a common courtesy if we could have a confidential advance copy of the estimates, as we are given by courtesy an advance copy of the speech from the throne as delivered by His Excellency. I believe somebody said, "The same courtesy as the press". Of that I have no knowledge. But I think it is only fair that when the minister makes a very long statement-something of a preliminary statement to his budget address-the members of the opposition parties should have the opportunity of seeing the estimates in advance.
I think the Leader of the Opposition made some very important points in his short statement. I noted that the minister forecast a decrease in ordinary expenditures of just $39 million, which is a very small amount in relation to the very vigorous statements that we had over the years as to the hundreds of millions of dollars which could be saved if the government squeezed out expenditures which were wasteful and extravagant. The cold, hard fact is that the government has been able to save only a small proportion of that amount it said it would save when it was in the opposition.
We note that total expenditures are going up. Most of those increases we support. As a matter of fact we have played a very active part over the years in promoting some of the increases we have here. I refer particularly 66968-9-45J
Tabling of Main Estimates to the $160 million that will be an additional expenditure to provide hospitalization insurance in various provinces. Although this is an increase in expenditure, and although this would result, normally at any rate, in a similar increase in taxes, we in the C.C.F. feel that this increase is an excellent expenditure and a good investment by the Canadian public. We go further and say that we think the estimates now before us demonstrate once again that no matter what may be the public statements of the party in power to the effect that the government should have a small role in the economic field, the modern trend is for government expenditures to increase and for the government's role in the economy to be expanded. Even under a Conservative government we see that this is the case.
I would suggest that there are other increases and expenditures at this time that the Canadian public would support, and support cheerfully, and I would suggest for one the provision of a comprehensive national health insurance plan. I believe the Canadian nation would support such a program. We do not support the increase that has been made necessary because of increased interest charges on the government debt. We feel that this is an expenditure that was not necessary, an expenditure that should not have been incurred, and a surprising expenditure in light of the Conservative party's record over the years in advocating loose money and lower interest charges instead of the present tight money and high interest policy. We will in the days ahead study these estimates thoroughly and make our detailed contributions on their various aspects.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance will inform the house as to whether or not prior to the opening of the house he gave to anyone, other than the government, copies of the estimates and copies of the written statement which he proposed to read and did read to the house when it opened.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The practice that was followed today is the practice that was established by my Liberal predecessors and was followed by them for years, including the time that my hon. friend was parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance. He is well aware, Mr. Speaker, that it has been the practice for some years to have a confidential briefing of the press similar to that which occurs at budget

Tabling of Main Estimates time. Representatives of the press were prepared to give the required undertaking to maintain in confidence the information they receive until it is released in the house, and they were permitted to be given the information and be briefed upon it prior to the session. That was done today from twelve o'clock on, and I have not the slightest doubt that the confidence that was reposed in the members of the press was fully respected by them. I do not think my hon. friend is any person to pretend not to know about this, because he was parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance while this practice was carried on for years.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the minister himself has indicated that this afternoon he has followed a procedure that has not been used for some years, namely that of a lengthy statement in connection with the tabling of the estimates. It has not been done since 1954. It is true that I served both his immediate predecessor and Mr. Abbott as ministers of finance. My recollection is very clear that with respect to the statement that Mr. Abbott had in mind, by courtesy a copy was sent to the leader of the opposition, just as it has been the practice to send shortly, before the speech is delivered, the budget speech on budget night.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it is not and has not been the practice to send a copy of the budget speech to any person before it is delivered. The practice is to send a copy of the budget speech to the leader of the opposition and to the leaders of groups in the house after the minister has begun to deliver it, not before.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since this statement and the opportunity to comment on it are a great deal different from the statement given in advance or at the beginning of the debate on the budget, I would ask the Minister of Finance in a friendly and sincere way whether he would give consideration to the suggestion that leaders of opposition parties be given an advance copy at approximately the same time as the press is given such a copy in a confidential way. I think it is only common fairness to the members of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Part of this discussion relates to the business of the house, but I think the question of delivery of a statement prior to the sitting of the house is really a matter between the leaders of the opposition parties and the Minister of Finance and should not be dealt with in open session.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point you have raised, sir, I would suggest that it opens up the question of a point of order, if this is not done, whether the Minister of Finance should have the right to make a long statement, particularly since he has given it in advance to the press without allowing members of the opposition to have the opportunity to see it and study it so they can be in the same position as the Minister of Finance to make comments on the estimates themselves.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if I may repeat what I said before, it has been the practice for years to give to the press in the course of the briefing conference that precedes the tabling of the estimates in the house a statement explanatory of the estimates. The statement I read today, Mr. Speaker, simply followed the practice that was followed by Mr. Abbott-


George James McIlraith: No, it did not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in 1950, 1951 and 1954. With regard to the length of the statement, I may say that one of his statements was much longer than the statement I read today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this discussion has gone far enough. There is no question before the house and no question has been addressed to any minister. The discussion began as a discussion of our procedure, and it seems to have gone beyond that.



TRANSPORT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I have received
numerous inquiries from Montreal members of parliament regarding the future operation of the Laehine canal, I should like to make a short statement about it.
Officials of my department, of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and of the national harbours board recently met with officials of the Montreal port council and informed them that it is the decision of the government that the Laehine canal shall be kept open throughout its entire length. The purpose will be to afford access to industries situated thereon; it will not be kept open for regular through traffic going to and from the great lakes.
However, should a vessel make use of the canal to serve an industry located thereon, and have some reason for leaving the canal at the opposite end from which it entered, this will be permitted under a toll structure related to the seaway toll structure for equivalent through movement.

The canal will be transferred to the St. Lawrence seaway authority for administrative and operational purposes, but not on the basis that the seaway must run it as a selfsustaining operation. My department is maintaining financial responsibility for the Lachine canal and will provide in its estimates the funds necessary for its operation. This will make it clear that the decision to keep the canal open on the basis I have indicated is a government decision rather than a matter solely within the hands of the seaway authority to determine.
I understand that the representatives of the Montreal port council expressed themselves as satisfied with this arrangement.



COMPANIES ACT


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-22, to amend the Companies Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ernest James Broome: The purpose of this bill is to prevent public companies taking advantage of the exemption given in section 121 of the Companies Act to private companies-among other requirements, those not having more than 50 shareholders-by which these so-called "family" companies do not have to file annual financial statements with the Secretary of State. Under the present definitions and section 121, large companies are able to avoid filing annual financial statements by incorporating private companies and becoming shareholders therein.
The present section 121 follows that in the pre-1948 United Kingdom companies act; however, in 1948 the United Kingdom act was revised and a provision was inserted to remedy the situation in England. The Canadian act was amended in some respects to follow the 1948 English revision, but this provision was not adopted. The proposed amendment, adapted to the United Kingdom act, would insert the United Kingdom provision in section 121 of the Canadian act. The amendment would not affect the true "family" private company.
It is proposed that the amendment come into effect on January 1, 1960 to give adequate notice to interested persons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INQUIRY AS TO RENEWAL OF WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that the Canadian-Soviet trade agreement, which was signed in February, 1956, under which Russia agreed to take 14 million bushels of wheat a year from Canada, comes to an end at the end of February of this year, steps are being taken to renegotiate this important treaty; and if so, what progress is being made to this end?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: It is a fact that this agreement comes to an end, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated, at the time he mentioned. This matter is now under consideration and the necessary discussions are taking place with a view to hastening the achievement once more of a similar agreement. What steps have been taken cannot be brought to the attention of the house while negotiations are going on, but every consideration is being given to the importance of this subject.



SALT FISH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the attention of the house to salted codfish. Yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester asked me about a statement attributed to Hon. Wills O. Isaacs at a banquet in Jamaica. The statement Mr. Isaacs made there was:
We have come to a definite agreement and understanding so in future there will be no more cause for complaints and hardship.
He was talking about the price of Canadian salted fish in the Jamaican market. The answer to my hon. friend's question is as follows. Discussions have been carried on during recent months with the minister of trade and industry of the government of Jamaica with a view to withdrawal of the retail price ceiling imposed on the sale of salted codfish in the Jamaican market. As a result of these discussions the government of Jamaica in November last did raise the retail price ceiling on salted codfish from 1 shilling 5 pence to 1 shilling 6 pence per pound.
During the recent Canadian trade fair held at Kingston, Jamaica, my colleague the Minister of Fisheries held further discussions with the Jamaican minister of trade and industry concerning the situation created by the continuance of the retail price ceiling. The day following the announcement officials of my department present at the trade fair visited the minister of trade and industry, Mr. Isaacs, and attempted to secure a commitment date for withdrawal of retail price ceilings on salted codfish in Jamaica. It is hoped that

Inquiries of the Ministry the government of Jamaica will find it possible to do away with the price ceiling, and we will continue to press for its removal.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to prospect the mind of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys by asking him a question. My parliamentary geiger counter is based on newspaper reports concerning the personal opinion expressed by Edward Argyle of the dominion observatory at Royal Oak near Victoria, British Columbia, to the effect that the United States Atlas satellite was a rubbishy propaganda stunt.
In view of the publicly expressed horrific concern of the senior officials of the minister's department with respect to this personal opinion, and in view of the reported full inquiry into this matter, undertaken with the consent of the minister, can the minister inform the house of all the facts surrounding this case, the result of the investigation and of any action taken because of this expression of personal opinion by a public servant;-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and further, will the
minister also inform the house of the exact limits of the area within which such a servant of the government of Canada is permitted to express a personal opinion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has gone far enough with the first part of his question. The latter part seems to launch into a rather broad subject. Maybe he could separate his questions so that I could deal with them separately.


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The investigation into the case of Mr. Argyle revealed that because of his technical knowledge he was often assigned the task of replying to the inquiring public and newspapermen on such matters as meteors and satellites. He was telephoned at his home on a Saturday by a local newspaperman inquiring about the reception of radio signals from the new satellite. He used the occasion to express a personal opinion, criticizing the United States publicity concerning the satellite and the President's message from it.
We believe that Mr. Argyle's action is reprehensible because of the brashness of his

statements and the offensive expressions he used and particularly because of the occasion he used of a press reporter's call to him to make such statements.
I wish to read, if I may, Mr. Speaker, the letter which was sent to this employee. It reads as follows:
Ottawa, January 5, 1959
Mr. P. E. Argyle,
Dominion Astrophysical Observatory,
Royal Oak, British Columbia.
Dear Mr. Argyle:
It is very regrettable, to say the least, that you should have chosen to express to an inquiring reporter that personal opinion on the United States Atlas satellite which has made the headlines in all the Canadian press. This has proven most embarrassing to our dominion observatories, to our minister and department, and to the government as a whole.
Any civil servant has a right to entertain personal opinions, but there is an unstated rule of prudence and reticence which applies, and which you have seriously disregarded. There is no excuse for the occasion you have chosen-a call from a press reporter-for the unfortunate statements you have made.
Were it not for your good record and reputation with our department, our minister would have wished to go further than this simple reprimand and cautioning.
I am sure you have, by now, realized-


Mr. Winch:: Fascism.


Paul Comtois: -the extent of the embarrassment you have caused, and that you will be governed accordingly in the future.
Yours very truly,
Marc Boyer
Deputy Minister


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your kind suggestion I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of what the minister's reply has been to date, will the minister also inform the house, in view of the importance of this question, what are the exact limits of the area of prudence and reticence within which a servant of the government may be able to express a personal opinion, particularly within his own home, without risking censure or reprimand?


Paul Comtois: I do not think I have to answer such a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I was just about to say it struck me that the question involves something that could not be dealt with very readily in an answer to an oral question. I am not sure whether it is even a proper subject for a question for the order paper, but I do not want to prejudge that issue. It asks for a statement on a matter which would require considerable information and careful statement. I think it might more properly be sought by a written question than by a question on the spur of the moment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question. Does the minister think his attitude to this question and his decision in the matter violate in any way the spirit of the bill of rights the Prime Minister intends to bring before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is obviously using the question now to express an opinion himself rather than to seek information.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a statement he made in the house the other day to the effect that negotiations were about to take place between Canada and EURATOM concerning the supply of uranium to EURATOM by Canada. Has the minister any comment to make on the report from London that Great Britain has now signed such an agreement with EURATOM which provides for the supply of fuel to reactors obtained by EURATOM from the United Kingdom, and to other reactors if arrangements can be made to that end?


Hon. Sidney E. Smilh (Secreiary of State for External Affairs):: I have not seen that report, and I will take the question as notice.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a report on the effects of fiscal policy on the forest industry, which he indicated last August 14 he had asked for? If not, can he indicate whether the report will be available to him this session?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I have received a report from my departmental heads on the forest industry, but I have not received any other report from any outside source.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will the minister tell us whether he presented his request for such a report to the Minister of Finance?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I understand that the hon. member is asking whether I presented a request-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes. I asked the minister
whether he had presented a request for such a report to the Minister of Finance?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON REPORTED STATEMENT BY PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Has
the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a press interview granted by the premier of British Columbia following his return from a meeting with the Prime Minister, in which it is stated by the premier that agreement has been reached between himself and the Prime Minister of Canada on the development of the Columbia river, and in addition aid for the protection of our forests both by way of access roads and fire protection?
In view of the statement that has been given by the premier of British Columbia, is the Prime Minister in a position now to give the house any information on those discussions or decisions?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer to the question of whether I have seen what the premier is alleged to have said in the press is no, and the answer to the question is no.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister able to report any further progress in the negotiations with regard to the strike of C.B.C. producers? I ask this question particularly because of the announced change in policy of the council of broadcasting unions, opening the way for wider support of the strike by associated workers.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I am not in a position to make any further announcement. I know nothing of the change of policy to which the hon. member has referred. In view of the assault which took place in Montreal last night I would think the policy was perhaps not quite as he indicated. The discussions that were initiated yesterday morning went on through the day. I am told that those representing the producers and the corporation adjourned their discussions late last evening and resumed again this morning. As far

Inquiries of the Ministry as I know discussions are still taking place.
I was told that the climate, shall we say, was cordial and that good will was evinced on . both sides, and it was thought that progress was made yesterday.


Hazen Robert Argue: Because of the minister's
reference to assaults I want to tell him that I know nothing about such assaults. I have not heard of them in any way whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would tell the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member is asking a question he is not supposed to rise to tell the minister something. This is a time for getting information.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would ask the minister if he has seen the report in this morning's Montreal Gazette setting forth the information I have used in asking the question.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not had time to read the morning paper, Mr. Speaker.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he will table the long-awaited Clark report on the old age survivor system in the United States, and if we may expect a statement from him on behalf of the government with regard to the report and the problem involved? Will the minister give members of the opposition the report at the same time it is given to other people in this country?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I think the Prime Minister answered that question a week ago last Friday, if I am not mistaken.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether the Borden commission on energy has resumed sittings in the Atlantic provinces and, if not, when such sittings are expected to be resumed?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): I will have to make inquiries about the matter.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. We have heard a great deal about unemployment in recent months, and at the same time there has been a rather distinct lack of sufficient numbers of properly qualified and trained people-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: -to meet the demands of industry and certain professions, for example veterinarians.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member just heard me remind a member who is somewhat nearer to me that the purpose of a member in rising is to ask for information and not to give it. I hope the hon. member will proceed with that in mind.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the facts I have stated, will the Department of Labour give consideration to an advertising program in our weekly press across Canada outlining these prospects in the long-term interests of improving the percentages of employable Canadians and at the same time meeting the demands of our expanding labour force?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: I am very happy to have the opportunity to answer this question for the hon. member for Rosthern, and I wish to thank him for giving me notice of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I would inform the house that the placement officers of the national employment service are endeavouring to keep in close touch with industry and with the professions to ascertain their present and future needs in this regard. It is certainly our intention and it has been our policy to place advertisements in the weekly press and in other advertising media across Canada to bring these matters to the attention of the public. In recent months our placement program has been intensified in this regard, and I can assure the hon. member that we are currently keeping a close watch on the executive and professional needs of industry in order to assist in obtaining trained and qualified people.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the house on first reading, the object of this bill is to place the status of naturalized citizens of Canada on a basis of complete legal equality with natural born citizens. The bill itself is very simple in its form. The object is even simpler to explain. I do not intend to detain the house for more than a very few minutes to explain more than one or two relatively small points.
I imagine, however, that it will be asked by some hon. gentlemen opposite, since it has become an ingrown habit on the other side of the house, why was this not done before when you were in office?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question might well be directed to me, and I think it would be a very proper question if directed to me. In order to save the vocal cords of the hon. lady, I intend to answer it before she gets up to speak.


An hon. Member:: Save our ears and write a letter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can decide for himself whether he would prefer to listen to me or to the hon. lady. The reason this was not done before is not very hard to see.


Mr. McPhillips:: Why did you not see it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McPhillips), whose very high-minded contributions to the debates in this house we all acknowledge, would not mind making his speech on his own time rather than on mine.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not wish to enter into any controversy over this matter with anyone. I am seeking to place this matter before the house as a measure in which all Canadians and all members of this house are equally interested, as I believe they all are. I am seeking to place it before the house in a completely non-controversial way. I do think the question I mentioned, is, more than it usually is, a very proper question to ask, and that is why I propose to answer it right now.
There was a very good reason why the provisions that were in the Citizenship Act as it was introduced and piloted through this house in an earlier parliament by the hon.
Canadian Citizenship Act member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) were put there. They did have very considerable administrable convenience. In fact they worked no particular hardship upon any resident citizen of Canada. Indeed, I think they worked no hardship on anyone anywhere in the world.
During the three years I was minister of citizenship and immigration no one ever suggested to me that any such change should be made. At the time I introduced certain amendments in this house to the citizenship act, it was not suggested from any part of this house that this would be a desirable change. During the spring and summer of 1957 it did come to my notice, as I think it came to the notice of many other hon. members, that there was in certain parts of this country amongst naturalized citizens-where this idea originated I do not know-a feeling that in some way or other they did not have equal status legally, that there were circumstances in which they could lose their citizenship, circumstances which did not exist in the case of a natural bom citizen.
There was a good deal of discussion on this subject during the year 1957, and it was referred to in the house by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), on a date which I could find, but I do not think there will be any dispute about it.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could finish my sentence. It was adverted to by the Minister of Justice during the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration over which he was then presiding and he expressed, on the part of the government, a feeling of considerable concern about this matter. I did draw the hon. gentleman's attention at that time to one of the possible difficulties and embarrassments that might be occasioned by this, and he indicated that he was aware of it. Now perhaps if the hon. member for Stormont would like to ask his question, he might do so.


Grant Campbell: May I ask the
hon. gentleman if this feeling on the part of naturalized Canadians might have arisen from a statement by the then minister to the effect that Canadian babies were infinitely superior to those who were not born here, and might that have created some apprehension in their minds?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I consider that particular intervention both worthy of the hon. member for Stormont and very characteristic of him.


Some hon. Members:: Answer it.

Canadian Citizenship Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: If hon. gentlemen would like to hear the answer I have no objection to giving it. Of course I never said what the hon. gentleman said, and no newspaper ever said I did. Perhaps that largely disposes of the matter. What I did say, and what I have never apologized for saying, and what I have never found any immigrant misunderstanding, was that as a means of increasing the population of a country, other things being equal, the cradle was a better way than migration because it was easier for people born and brought up in a country to adapt themselves to that country. I have never met any immigrant who had a child in this country, and to whom I explained what I really did say, who did not thoroughly agree with that view. I fully expect that the usual distortions of my statement, which I might say gave me a certain notoriety in this country that I did not have before, will go on being repeated. Being a politician, perhaps that additional notoriety may not do me any more harm than the repetition of my name may do me good.
It does seem to me, sir, that this is a rather small kind of intervention in the consideration of a subject that ought to be considered on a high level and very dispassionate on both sides of the house. I hope this bill can be considered in this way.
When the question came to my attention in the summer of 1957 I, as a former minister -and as I am sure the hon. lady would agree-naturally consulted the department, as I am sure she would in similar circumstances, in order to see what their views were. The administrative conveniences of the law as it then stood were put forward in strong terms by the department. I am not going to go into that matter, because it is not particularly relevant and because all those considerations have been removed by the decision made by the house at the last session. But against this consideration it was easy to see that if there was on the part of citizens of Canada who had come here voluntarily to make this country their home a feeling that in any way whatsoever they were not considered to be the equals of those who were born here, and if it was possible for parliament to change that feeling, we ought to try to do it.
I consulted two distinguished former members of this house. One of them was still a member of this house at that time, and the other was a member of the other place. Both of them were immigrants. I refer to Senator Croll and Hon. James Sinclair. I consulted them about this question and said to them, "Do you as immigrants feel that you are in any way inferior, legally or in any other way?" They said, "Personally


we do not, but we see the point and we think the situation should be changed."
I must say that as far as I was concerned, the judgment of those two experienced public men influenced me strongly. I felt that any small administrative inconvenience should not be weighed in the balance against an act which would give to all our citizens a feeling that there was a genuine psychological equality as between naturalized and natural bom citizens. That view was taken when the subject came up for discussion at the convention of our party in January 1958. The relevant provision of our program is contained in one sentence which I should like to put on the record, and I do so in no partisan sense. It is as follows:
The Liberal party which sponsored the Canadian Citizenship Act stands for the absolute equality of all Canadians whether bom in Canada or naturalized.
I do not think it is a partisan question at all. I understand it is the position taken by the Conservative party. If I am wrong I should be glad to be corrected by anyone authorized to speak for the party. I believe it is the position taken by the Conservative party and I hope it is the position taken by that party. I believe it is also the position taken by the C.C.F. party. If my memory serves me-and I must confess I did not read his speech right through-I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) took that position on the very last day of the last session or the day next to the last day. In any case it is my belief that so far as the objective of this bill is concerned, there is unanimity among all the parties in this house and, I hope, among all the members in this house.
In view of the unanimity that I believe exists I must say that we were disappointed, and we expressed our disappointment at the bill introduced at the last session. In fact we even divided the house on the question on the last day of the last session of parliament. At that time I moved an amendment in committee, and the amendment I moved at that time was in the precise terms of the bill now before the house. In order to save the time of hon. members I should like to read what I said about that amendment, because it was put quite briefly. I said this, as found at pages 4759 and 4760 of Hansard for 1958:
The only difference between what I am suggesting and what the hon. lady is putting forward in her bill, now that she has taken out . . . section (c) ... is that it will no longer be competent to revoke the citizenship of the person who has been charged with the offence of treason, is outside the country and does not come back to be tried.

That is the only person whose citizenship can now be revoked under the law as it now stands, except a person who has obtained his citizenship by fraud. As will be seen by an examination of this bill, the question of fraud is dealt with by this bill in another fashion which I think is more consonant with the real facts of the case than is the present law. With respect to this one disability, if you like to put it in that way, I said this:
That is the sort of thing that happens once in a great while. It is perhaps desirable to be able to do this.
That is to say, to revoke the citizenship of someone who is charged with treason and who will not come back to Canada to be tried. I continued:
However-
And I think this is the really important thing.
-if we are going to take away all the other reasons, why leave this one? The main purpose of this whole exercise-
That is to say, the bill which the hon. lady was then piloting through the house.
-as I take it-and I think the house is not divided on this point any longer-
I said that then, I say it now and I believe it to be true.
-is to give complete equality, the psychological feeling of equality. If a natural born person is a traitor, we cannot divest him of his citizenship. Therefore are we really going to be losing very much if once in a generation there happens to be a naturalized person who is charged with treason and is outside of Canada and whom we cannot strip of his citizenship? It does not seem to me that the country is going to suffer very much compared with what we are trying to do in this legislation. In other words, we are trying to give to the naturalized citizens of this country a feeling that once they are naturalized they are the equal of the natural born citizens.
That is still the objective. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I indicated then, as I want to indicate again today, that I am not attached to the language of this bill at all. Hon. members will recall that I drafted the amendment rather hastily. At that time I said this:
I have tried to make this suggestion in a completely non-controversial way because I think all of us are looking to the achievement of the same objective. I may say that if the Minister of Justice finds any technical defect in the amendment, I should be happy indeed to yield to his very much superior knowledge of these matters in making any textual changes in it. But I would hope that in principle it would be acceptable to the government.
I express that same hope again today, Mr. Speaker. We have now had six months in which to reflect on this matter. If, as may well be possible, the language used in
66968-9-46J
Canadian Citizenship Act the drafting of this bill is not entirely satisfactory to the government or to the law officers of the crown, I make the suggestion that we accept the principle of the bill on second reading and send it to a committee. I may say that no one will be happier than I to accept any amendment which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Minister of Justice or the law officers of the crown think will better accomplish the objective which I believe we all have in view, namely this objective of giving to all Canadians this sense of equality.
If I may do so, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this in conclusion. The purpose of this bill is to achieve an objective which was stated simply and eloquently by the Leader of the Opposition whose statement will be found at page 4697 of Hansard for last year. The hon. gentleman said that we should seek to achieve a situation where
-there shall be only one class of citizens in Canada, in a country which has no room for first, second or third class Canadians.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquetie):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), remarks which were apologetic in some respects, excusing himself as the former minister of citizenship and immigration for not having dealt with something the present minister has dealt with, due to the fact that his attention was not drawn thereto. But that is beside the point. What I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members of this house is that I as a naturalized Canadian would be, and should be, the first to go along with and support any legislation-and I quote from the explanatory notes in Bill No. C-2-that would-
-give complete equality of status with natural born citizens to citizens other than natural born citizens by removing the remaining discrimination in the present law.
Mr. Speaker, for reasons which I shall state in the course of my address I feel that this bill fails in that respect; therefore I have no alternative but to speak against it. I will vote against it and will ask the hon. members to do likewise.
As a naturalized Canadian I probably feel more strongly about any of the discriminations which exist against the thousands who are in the same category. I feel more strongly than the natural born Canadian would because, Mr. Speaker, by accepting citizenship in this country I accepted all the duties and obligations, and there is not one iota of difference between duties and obligations that are imposed upon me as a citizen and those imposed on the person who is a natural
716	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act born Canadian. If my duties and obligations are the same, then my status should be absolutely equal to that of my brother Canadian who happens to be born in this country.
In spite of what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said, I want to reiterate that up to last session, in September, there was discrimination against naturalized Canadians, and I wish to assure this house that naturalized Canadians did object to these discriminatory provisions in the act. Probably they missed the hon. member while he was minister of citizenship and immigration, but I can give quotations from the ethnic press for some five years back. However, that is unnecessary in the circumstances; but to refresh the memories of members, if I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the address of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which quotation is to be found at page 4690 of Hansard of September 5, 1958. These provisions which were discriminatory are summarized there, and I would like to put them on record. Before I do so I want to make it plain that these were the provisions under which a naturalized Canadian could have his citizenship revoked, and they were as follows:
1, assisted an enemy of Canada in time of war; 2, obtained his citizenship by false representation or fraud; 3, has resided outside of Canada for six years and has not maintained substantial connection with Canada; 4, has resided outside of Canada for two years in a country of which he was a citizen before he became a Canadian citizen and has not maintained substantial connection with Canada; 5. while out of Canada has shown disaffection or disloyalty to Her Majesty; or 6, has been convicted by a Canadian court of an offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to Her Majesty.
It is agreed that by Bill No. C-58 introduced by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration all or practically all of these provisions were repealed. Mr. Speaker, as the law stands today I cannot find anything in the act which makes any distinction between the status of a natural born Canadian and a naturalized Canadian while in Canada. Is that right?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: They are the Canadians about whom we should be most concerned. But, Mr. Speaker, in spite of what my hon. friend has said, it is interesting to note that during all the years he was king of the castle, or minister of citizenship and immigration, he took absolutely no steps to do away with or repeal these discriminatory provisions which remained in the act, and it is only after he has landed himself in the opposition that he suddenly realizes that
{Mr. Mandziuk.]

something is required, probably through repentance, and he is now prepared to go the whole hog, which was a phrase he used in one of his addresses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that is right.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The second point which leads one to wonder, Mr. Speaker, is why did he attempt in the last session to introduce a motion which, if it had not been ruled out of order but had been accepted by the house, would have killed Bill C-58 which removed these discriminatory provisions from the act? The reason was this, "Me too, sir", as usual.
This bill, C-2 has somewhat high-sounding language. I hope hon. members will refer to it because I am going to quote, first of all, the section that it intends to repeal, and that is the section which is at present our law, section 19(1). May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to put it on Hansard for all new or naturalized Canadians to read, so they may take note of how the present law stands:
19. (1) The governor in council may. in his discretion, order that any person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if, upon a report from the minister, he is satisfied that such person,
(a)	having been charged with the offence of treason under the Criminal Code or with an offence under the Official Secrets Act, has failed or refused to return to Canada voluntarily within such time as may be prescribed in a notice sent by the minister to such person at his last known address and has not appeared at the preliminary inquiry into such offence or at the trial of such offence, or both, as the case may be;
(b)	has obtained a certificate of naturalization or of Canadian citizenship by false representation or fraud or by concealment of material circumstances.
This section deals with two types of people. It deals with those who may be charged with treason or under the Official Secrets Act; and it deals, second, with those to whom a certificate of citizenship is granted but under false pretences on the part of the applicant, the concealment of material facts or other irregularities.
Let me deal with the person charged with treason. Listening to the eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a naturalized Canadian might be led to believe that there is still discrimination in this section. But is there? If a naturalized Canadian in Canada, charged with treason, is convicted after a proper hearing in a proper court, he does not lose his citizenship. If a naturalized Canadian outside Canadian jurisdiction, or in another country, is summoned here to answer the charge of treason or a charge under the Official Secrets Act and appears to answer to that charge, he does not lose his citizenship. But a naturalized Canadian who refuses to come back to this country-the country of his adoption, the

country which accepted him and which he accepted-and stays away, declining to face the charge, loses his citizenship.
I do not know why we should be too much concerned about giving these characters- they are few in number, I admit-the protection of our diplomatic services in other countries when they have committed a breach of trust with the country which has adopted them as her own sons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member for Marquette permit a simple factual question? My question is this. Looking at the words which the hon. member read, why does he think it should be possible for the governor in council to take citizenship away from a naturalized citizen in these circumstances and not from a natural born citizen?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I intend to make reference to that. I shall have that in mind in the course of my address. I regret that we have no such provision which would affect a natural born Canadian. I regret it, and I would be in complete accord with such a provision. Mr. Speaker, permit me to quote the wording of the oath which an applicant for Canadian citizenship takes:
I	swear that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
So help me God.
By refusing to answer a summons to come back to this country and face-in plain language-the music, a man shows that he has no regard for Canadian law, and that he has no regard for the sovereign to whom he swore allegiance. In other words, by the very fact that he stays out of the country he convicts himself as a traitor. Mr. Speaker, I speak for the thousands and thousands of naturalized Canadians when I say that they have no respect for traitors. In particular, those who have acquired citizenship only recently, those who have come here from behind the iron curtain, know full well that it is because of traitors and quislings that the freedom of their countries was lost. I venture to dare anyone to prove that naturalized Canadians here are in favour of what the hon. gentleman has proposed.
This is the law as it stands. I am satisfied with it, and thousands of people in the same category as myself are, I believe, also satisfied with it.
The second part of this section 19 (1) which I have just quoted deals with a person who obtains a certificate by fraud, a person who misrepresents himself, goes under a false name, and so on. Well, the section now in the
Canadian Citizenship Act act sets out that a commission should hear the case, and that if it is well founded the citizenship papers should be revoked and the person concerned considered as if he had never been a Canadian citizen.
Having paid some attention to the law as it stands, let us now look at the terms of Bill No. C-2 sponsored by the hon. gentleman. I should like to put this on record, too, in Hansard if I am permitted:
19 (1) A Canadian citizen other than a natural born citizen shall not lose his citizenship for any cause for which a natural born citizen would not lose his citizenship.
Where it is established to the satisfaction of the court that a person has obtained a certificate of naturalization or Canadian citizenship by false representation or fraud or by concealment of material circumstances such certificate shall be revoked and such person shall be deemed never to have been a Canadian citizen.
Bill C-2 has not too much quarrel with the present law in so far as it affects citizens who have obtained their naturalization certificates by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. The hon. gentleman in this bill foresees the same ultimate result, namely that somebody or other is going to make a declaration that a person had never become a citizen, which is what we have now.
In spite of the fact that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was very apologetic about the way this bill was drawn up, I cannot help but give it the respect it deserves and use the wording it contains. Now I shall deal with the revocation of citizenship of one who has obtained his citizenship by fraud, misrepresentation and so on. The bill says:
Where it is established to the satisfaction of the court-
Those hon. gentlemen who are learned in the law know that putting the definite article "the" before the noun "court" indicates a definite court, some specific court. I should like to know what court the sponsor of this bill had in mind. In section 2(b) of the act there is a definition of the court which deals with matters under the citizenship act, and I quote from section 2(h):
"Court" means any superior, circuit, county or district court, and includes in the province of Quebec any district magistrate, and in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon Territory, any stipendiary magistrate or any other person designated by the governor in council under this act.
He receives his authority for revoking citizenship from the governor in council. The procedure is set out in section 19 (1), (a), subsections 3 and 4. One of the members of the commission must have some experience in judicial matters. There is no designation in this bill as to who shall compose the

Canadian Citizenship Act court. The present law contains the procedure which must be followed leading to revocation, but there is no procedure laid down in this bill at all. By deleting the preamble of the present law the hon. member has taken out the procedure as to who may initiate proceedings and what happens to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask a question? The hon. gentleman, of course, is learned in the law. As he knows, I am not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it the hon. member is not prepared to accept the question at the moment.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I will answer the question at the end.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot undertake to give the hon. member more time. That is something we will have to deal with if it arises.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated my humble opinion on revocation proceedings against a citizen who improperly obtained his citizenship. The bulk and the body of this bill make very attractive reading, Mr. Speaker. It will look well on the hustings; it will sound well in a political gathering and on the platform that the hon. gentleman sponsored a bill which says:
A Canadian citizen other than a natural-born citizen shall not lose his citizenship tor any cause for which a natural-born citizen would not lose his citizenship.
It makes very attractive propaganda. It refers to discrimination and discrimination with a capital "D".


An hon. Member:: By a member who was the king of the castle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member for his compliment.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I draw the attention of the house to the fact that Bill C-2 conflicts with section 18 of the act, which the sponsor of the bill should have repealed by his amendment. May I read section 18 so that it will be on Hansard. This is in direct conflict with the bill now before us, namely Bill C-2. Section 18 reads:
Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a person who, since becoming a Canadian citizen, has resided outside of Canada for a period of 10 consecutive years ceases to be a Canadian citizen upon the expiration of such period.
That is a discriminatory provision which I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This section is, of course, subject to certain exceptions. There is a provision which states that if a naturalized Canadian is serving in
[Mr. Mandziuk.1
the army, or if he is a civil servant and out of the country for 10 years, or if he keeps in contact with the proper officers of our diplomatic corps, he can keep his citizenship in good standing. But this section does not apply to the natural born Canadian, and Bill C-2 does not repeal the section. If Bill C-2 were adopted it would be in direct conflict with section 18 of the act. How does that bring about equality of the natural born and the naturalized Canadian, in view of the fact that we still have section 18 in the act?
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to sum up why I oppose this bill. It adds nothing to the present law but, on the contrary, confuses the issue in so far as the procedure for revocation is concerned. I oppose the bill because I believe it is the opinion of the naturalized Canadian that a person who betrays his country by the very fact that he refuses to return does not deserve to carry the honourable name of "Canadian". He deserves to lose it. This bill is in direct conflict with section 18 and section 18 is discriminatory. If the repeal of section 18 had been included in this amendment I would hesitate to vote against the bill. As it stands, this bill does not advance the cause of the naturalized citizen one step. This bill has no other concern than that for the Quisling who by the very fact that he refuses to come back to this country to face a charge would be able to carry on and flash to the world outside of Canada that he is still a Canadian citizen. He does not deserve that right, Mr. Speaker. I thank you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would now permit my question?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad he asked me to wait because I ask it with more force now. Does he not feel that any difficulties in drafting for which I, to use his own words, apologize, could well be corrected in committee? I would be very happy indeed, if there is any conflict between this bill and section 18, as I think the hon. gentleman established, to see it changed.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, I am not attacking Bill C-2 on its grammatical or syntax construction at all but I am attacking the very essence of it. I think I made it clear to this house where I as a naturalized Canadian stand. I hope that answers the question.


Mr. Crestohl:: Will the hon. gentleman answer one more question? I think the last point the hon. member made was a very

formidable one, when he spoke about a traitor deserving to lose his citizenship. Would he not say that a man, even though he is natural born who is a traitor should likewise lose his citizenship?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: 1 am glad the hon. member brought this to my attention. I had it in my notes and I missed it. I regret that no similar provision exists with respect to a natural born citizen. I regret it and therefore I am in perfect agreement with the hon. member.


Leon David Crestohl: We are in agreement on that.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope to be able to look at the bill before us in a rather dispassionate way, this being the approach that I think we should take to as much of the legislation coming before us as possible, especially legislation that affects the rights of individuals. I believe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) in introducing the bill and moving the motion for second reading deserves some commendation; first, for the purpose of the bill which relates to complete equality of status between natural born and naturalized citizens, which may or may not be achieved by the wording of the bill and, second, for his ability in defending his actions when he was minister and was in a position to deal with some of the discriminations which were removed from the act last session.
The rather devastating speech of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), to which we have just listened, should add more weight to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, a suggestion that I also made in an earlier proceeding in the house. Many public bills sponsored by private members are not drafted in properly acceptable form and may not be in complete conformity with other sections of the act they seek to amend or with other acts but nonetheless I suggest that if bills are poorly worded that should be overlooked and an attempt made to get at their essence. I suggested on another occasion that we should not be too critical of the wording of such bills and that after they receive second reading they should be referred to a standing committee of the house which could deal with all the ramifications and interconnections between the bill under consideration and any other acts then in force. That committee would be able to consult with and draw upon the experience of departmental officials and the people who deal with the drafting of bills and we would thus be able to get correctly worded legislation which would in fact reflect the announced intention or purpose of the bill.
Canadian Citizenship Act
Whether or not the bill now before us achieves that purpose is a debatable point. In my opinion there is conflict in some degree between the amendment sought and the announced purpose of the bill. Amendments were made to the act last session but if we had not had to consider them in the last few days of a lengthy session at a time when we were sitting on Saturday and also every morning and evening probably more consideration could have been given to the thoughts I should like to express with respect to the proposal now before us and the manner in which we can amend the act to meet the announced purpose of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
I am sure that all of us agree with the purpose of bringing about equality of status between natural born and naturalized citizens. I had rather hoped that the bill might have been drafted in a little better form and that it would have covered the suggestions which I intend to make. I am sure it would then have met the desire of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and would have been acceptable to the minister and to the hon. member for Marquette.
Before I go into that matter, I should like to point out that the hon. member for Marquette, speaking, as I said, in a very devastating way, made a complete analysis of the effect the amendment would have in the light of other sections of the act as it now stands. Apart from his introductory remarks and his personal interest in the subject as a naturalized Canadian citizen, he based his entire objection to the bill on the matter of a naturalized citizen refusing to return to Canada after having been charged with an offence. He did refer to section 18 but if there is any discriminatory feature involved that could easily be straightened out by a standing committee of the house in line with the purpose and intention behind the bill.
The act makes little reference, I submit, to refusing to return even though it can be inferred. Too much emphasis was placed by the hon. member on the matter of refusal to return to justify a position contrary to the idea expressed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
If I may do so, Mr. Speaker, and I think I will be within the rules as others have already done so-I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong-I should like to refer to section 19 (1) (a) of the act which says that a person shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if he has done certain things. He shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if he "having been charged with the offence of treason under the criminal code or with an offence under the Official Secrets Act, has failed or refused
720	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act to return to Canada voluntarily within such time as may be prescribed in a notice sent by the minister."
I think we should examine the question of failure to return. So far as the section of the act which the bill intends to amend is concerned, during the last session I had quite a lengthy discussion with officers and members of the Canadian citizenship council, not only about the effect of this proposal but the effect of another amendment proposed last session which the minister was kind enough to withdraw. We should apply ourselves to drafting legislation in compliance with the announced intention of the bill which I am sure coincides with the intention of every member of the house, namely to give complete equality of status to natural born and naturalized citizens. I do not think there is any difference between us so far as that being our hope but if we are to draft a law that will fulfil that intention I submit we should approach the present section of the act not from the point of view expressed in this bill by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate but with this thought in mind.
Let us take the example of a naturalized Canadian citizen who may hold a very responsible position in a corporation, a profession or even in the civil service. Let us say that he departs from Canada for business, professional or other reasons and shortly after his departure a charge is laid against him for treason or an offence under the Official Secrets Act about which he had no knowledge at the time of his departure. Let us say that the charge is laid only a day or two after he leaves. He may be in the position of having made arrangements to be away from the country for business or professional reasons for a lengthy period of time. Now, I know that the minister who now heads this department would be very generous in circumstances of that nature and would give a very lenient interpretation to the section I have just described. However, we may not have this hon. lady as minister of this department forever. The mortality rate in politics is very high. If she does not fall by the wayside at election time, she may be elevated to a higher post, or indeed this government may not be the government at that time.
We should draft our legislation in this connection with these circumstances in mind. Provision should be made for the extension of the time period during which a person may be away from the country, depending on certain circumstances, and it should not be left to the generosity or lack of it of the particular minister who may be in office at that time. If we were to legislate that a person may return to Canada within a certain


period of time, if there is a preliminary inquiry into such offence or a trial, the period of time could be based on the normal length of time it takes between the laying of the charge and the case coming to court, and could take into account also travelling conditions between this country and other countries. In addition, arrangements could be made so that the governor in council may extend that period if the person makes application to have it extended. I believe this would completely meet the announced purpose of this particular bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may say so, the hon. member's remarks for the last few minutes would be more appropriate for the committee stage of the bill than during debate on the principle of the bill.


Frank Howard: If I may have your indulgence for a moment, I should like to explain my reason for feeling it was necessary to go into details. If this were a bill which had been presented by a cabinet minister then it would reach the stage of being voted upon and ultimately the committee stage. However, I doubt if that will happen in this case.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should indicate no such assumption.


Frank Howard: I am being guided by past experience in this house in so far as these bills are concerned. It was for that purpose I ventured into the details of the bill which should be dealt with more properly at the committee stage.
I hope, in any event, that the assumption I made that this bill would not be voted upon is completely unfounded, and that we do have a vote on second reading. Regardless of the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), my hope is that if the hon. lady enters this debate she will indicate it is the desire of the government to have this bill voted upon, and that she desires to have it referred to a committee for the purpose of seeing that there is complete equality of status between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.
If the committee will deal with it in that light, and review the comments I have made, as well as my reference to section 18 of the act, we may then have legislation which will fully meet the desires of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the newly revived Liberal party, as well as of the C.C.F. as expressed over many years and of Conservative members who have expressed opinions along the lines of my suggestions. If the matter is referred to a committee, and these suggestions are accepted, then we will be moving in the direction of complete equality amongst all people in Canada.


Mr. Murray Smilh (Winnipeg Norih):: It
has often been said in this house by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pic-kersgill), who has proposed this bill, that the Conservative party is a party of confusion. He has, on numerous occasions, stated that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is confused and that our policies are confused. It has sometimes been said that he who propounds imaginary faults in another is merely covering up a fault which he knows he himself has. I submit that that is borne out by the fact that today we have before us a bill which is worded exactly the same as the amendment that the hon. member proposed to a bill introduced in this house on September 6 last. In the interval, I submit the hon. member has been so confused in trying to find a good way of attacking the policies of the government that he has neglected to consult his former colleagues who used to occupy the treasury benches to ascertain just how this bill should have been drafted. He now brings before us a series of confused words which would merely result in putting confusion into the Canadian Citizenship Act.
This bill is in direct conflict with section 18, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk). This bill also deletes the present section 19 (1) and hence no procedure for the institution of revocation proceedings would be provided. On that basis, I think it is impossible for this house to register an affirmative vote on this bill. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has gone to some lengths to state that by introducing this bill, and by its passage in this house, we would remove discrimination from our statutes and would place naturalized Canadians on an equal footing with natural born Canadians. If my memory serves me correctly, the Liberal party by their policies in the past have thrived on discrimination. We have heard, and indeed I have fought it in my own constituency, that the Conservatives are anti-French; that they are anti-Quebec; that they are antiCatholic; that they are anti-Protestant; and that they are anti-everything under the sun.
We have heard also of people jumping on bandwagons. We have heard the hon. member mention something about a quotation that has now become fairly famous in the political history of this country. In order to refresh his memory, I should like to refer to a report that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 14, 1955. The dateline is Victoria, April 13, and I quote:
The best way to increase the population of Canada is by the cradle, immigration minister Pickersgill-
Canadian Citizenship Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order; before the hon. member proceeds perhaps he would tell me how what he is reading relates to the principle of this bill.


Sidney Earle Smith: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the bill is intended to eliminate discrimination and possibly I am straying somewhat far afield. However, I believe the former minister asked that his memory be refreshed or at least he made a statement to the effect that no newspaper had ever quoted what I was just about to quote. However, it is the famous "Canadian babies" statement. If the hon. member would like to read it I should be glad to pass it over to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I have read it before.


William Murray Smith: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to mention just how this Conservative party has eliminated discriminatory clauses in the Canadian Citizenship Act. This was pointed out by the hon. member for Marquette. Indeed, we might well ask the question why this had not been done when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was the minister. I do not believe we have received a satisfactory reply. By proposing this bill I submit that the hon. member has done one of the biggest about-faces that we have seen in recent times.
First of all, I should like to point out again that there is no discrimination in Canada at the present time. By that I mean there is no difference between a naturalized Canadian and a natural born Canadian. It is true that a naturalized Canadian can lose his citizenship if it is proven that he has obtained it by fraud. But I submit that in such case he has not lost anything because he never had anything to lose in the first place and therefore there is no discrimination there. The section which the hon. member seeks to do away with is the one which states that if a naturalized Canadian is charged with treason and, being out of the country, refuses to come back and stand trial, his citizenship may be revoked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or has failed to come back.


William Murray Smith: But that section does not affect anyone residing in Canada. Any naturalized citizen who stays in Canada and stands trial cannot have his citizenship revoked.
Let us examine for a moment the question of who would be affected by this clause. Naturally the only person who would be affected would be one who commits treason. In this day and age who would be a likely person to commit the offence of treason in this country? I submit that it would be a person who believed in the communistic
722	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act ideology. Therefore, in all probability, he would be a person who would have dual citizenship. In other words, he would retain his original citizenship even though he became a Canadian citizen. In such a case, if he were charged with treason and refused to come back and stand trial he would be able to travel all over that block of nations and brag about being a Canadian. I do not think that I or any other Canadian, whether he be natural born or naturalized, would like to look upon a situation of that nature.
I speak with feeling on this subject because I represent a constituency that is composed of Canadians of practically every racial origin who follow various religious beliefs. Among my constituents I have Ukrainians, Poles, Germans, Czechoslovakians, Jews and many others. Many of them have come to this country in recent years and know what it is like to live near or under a communist regime. I know that all of those people who have become naturalized and are now Canadians would not criticize this or any other government for revoking the citizenship of one of their own number who was charged with treason and failed to stand trial. These people feel that the government, rather than pass a bill of this nature should include in its citizenship act new sections to deal a little bit more effectively with known communists in Canada. The people of my constituency feel strongly about this matter because of the fact that at this very moment Mr. W. C. Ross, who ran as a Labour Progressive candidate in the March 31 election, is now attending the mass rally of the communist party of the Soviet union in Moscow.


Leon David Crestohl: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Murray Smith: Yes.


Leon David Crestohl: Can the hon. member tell the house whether this gentleman whom he has just named is a native born Canadian?


William Murray Smith: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have not that information. I do not know whether he is a native born Canadian or a naturalized Canadian. However, I do not think the question makes any difference. What I am suggesting is that my constituents feel that rather than pass a bill of this nature we should be looking into the possibility of putting on the books more effective legislation to deal with communists, whether they be native born or naturalized.


Leon David Crestohl: But equally.


William Murray Smith: I should like to submit, Mr. Speaker, that this clause which provides that the government may revoke the citizenship of a naturalized Canadian who


refuses to return to the country and stand trial for treason can be looked at in a different way. If a Canadian citizen is abroad and refuses to return, I submit that any time he sets foot within the British commonwealth of nations or certain other countries extradition proceedings can be taken to bring him back to Canada to stand trial. By revoking the citizenship of a naturalized Canadian under the same circumstances I submit that you make it practically impossible for him to return and be tried and hence you make it practically impossible for this country to punish him. Looking at the situation in that light, it could be argued that you were in fact giving the advantage to the naturalized Canadian.
However, such an argument may be called farfetched. Indeed, a great many of the arguments which are advanced on this bill may be called farfetched, whether they be for or against, because how often in the past or how often in the future will the situation arise where this section in fact will have to be invoked? I think that should be taken into consideration.
Of course, the hon. gentlemen to my right may say that because of that fact the section will not be used very often, or may not be used at all, so why have it on the statute books? Of course, one could get into an endless series of arguments along that line. Why, for instance, have certain sections in the Criminal Code under which we do not prosecute very often? I submit that this section should be on the statute books in case the situation does arise, and then extraordinary action will not have to be taken at that time.
I suggest that naturalized Canadians coming to this country will back this section, because they know what it is like to have traitors among them. They know, as we all do, who our potential enemy is, namely the people who believe in the communist ideology. Naturalized Canadians who have seen this ideology and have seen the actions of men who believe in it would certainly not tolerate any person who follows that ideology and becomes a traitor to this country.
I submit that this bill is an attempt by the Liberal party once again to charge our government and our party with being discriminatory to certain groups or individuals in this country. When the people of this country are told, and when it is emphasized to them, that the only time a naturalized citizen's certificate of citizenship may be revoked is when he is charged with treason and refuses to return to stand trial; when that is communicated to all of the naturalized citizens in this country they will back the legislation 100 per cent.

I also submit, Mr. Speaker, although I may be anticipating, that if the Liberal party or any of its members label this section in our act discriminatory to naturalized Canadians residing in Canada they are doing a disservice to this country which is comparable to the disservice they are doing by their cries about unemployment and other matters affecting our economy.
Therefore, I find that for two reasons I cannot support this bill. Firstly, because it would place confusion into the Canadian Citizenship Act, and I suggest that, no matter how much amending was done, I doubt if it would accomplish the purpose that the proposer intends. Secondly, I feel that the naturalized Canadians in Canada will not tolerate, any more than any of the rest of us, a person who commits treason and then refuses to stand trial.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in this bill. Contrary to the opinion expressed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Smith) to the effect that this bill is being introduced just to oppose the government, I do not think it serves that purpose in this case. This bill, in effect, contains the proper safeguards which will ensure to all Canadians, whatever their origin, complete equality in letter as well as in spirit. No one is so naive as to believe that the present act provides equality to naturalized citizens, as opposed to that which is enjoyed by natural born Canadians. As the law stands now any naturalized Canadian citizen is subject, under certain circumstances, to the loss of his citizenship. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as anything but an act still perpetuating a discrimination. We would readily admit that the changes brought about by the introduction of Bill No. C-58 did make certain improvements which were, indeed, welcomed by the members on this side of the house. But they did not go all the way to granting that equality which is now being enjoyed by natural born Canadians.
When the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), for whom I have the greatest admiration, moved the second reading of Bill No. C-58 she had this to say and I quote from Hansard of September 5, 1958, as reported on page 4690:
The amendment will repeal the existing subsection (1) of section 19 altogether, but it must be noted that under the amendment the naturalized Canadian citizen can still have his Canadian citizenship revoked by the governor in council if he is charged with a treasonable offence and, being abroad, fails to return to Canada and stand trial for that offence.
The hon. lady clearly stated that under certain circumstances a naturalized Canadian
Canadian Citizenship Act can lose his citizenship. Notwithstanding the passing of Bill No. C-58 during the last session to amend the act-it did improve the old act, as we admit-it left a discriminatory section in the act. This amendment, moved by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill), the minister of citizenship and immigration during the former Liberal administration, a man who has a profound knowledge of the subject, would bring equalization of rights, as well as responsibility, with the natural born Canadian. The approval of this amendment, I submit, would please a great many men and women in every constituency in Canada, including that of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North. I am sure there are many naturalized Canadians in his constituency as there are in all. We are anxious to see Canada a peace-loving nation, with a single concept of citizenship, fulfilling the hopes and the prophecies of our pioneers.
I do not intend to speak at greater length on the bill, because I do not wish to see it talked out. I should like to see it brought to a vote as soon as possible, and I trust that when the roll is called every member will vote for the measure notwithstanding what has been said against it, because I have the feeling that thousands of Canadians from coast to coast will watch with more than passing interest to see whether or not this parliament will approve the principle of equal rights and equal responsibilities for all Canadians.


Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when one first looks at this bill he would probably believe it to be a worthwhile bill to present to the house. The only impression one would draw from reading the bill is that there is at present discrimination in Canada between natural born and naturalized Canadians.
Then if we read in the explanatory notes the purpose of the measure, we would probably think that it is a great deal more commendable, for the purpose as set out is to give complete equality of status with natural born citizens to citizens who are other than natural born by removing discriminations which now exist in the law.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mand-ziuk) has pointed out that if this bill were accepted there would in consequence arise direct conflict with section 18 of the present act which provides quite another ground upon which the citizenship of a naturalized Canadian may be taken away-not by revocation, but by time lapse. This will be one ground, in particular, with which this bill does not deal. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) may

Canadian Citizenship Act at this very moment be considering the introduction of an amendment to repeal section 18 of the act in order to make this bill more acceptable to the house. However, I would point out that section 18 and section 19 (1) are only some of the grounds upon which a naturalized Canadian could lose his citizenship. In addition there are also grounds upon which a natural born Canadian may lose his citizenship and I would refer in particular to section 4 of the act, which reads as follows:
4. A person born before the 1st day of January, 1947, is a natural born Canadian citizen
(a)	if he was born in Canada or on a Canadian ship and had not become an alien before the 1st day of January, 1947; or
(b)	if he was born outside of Canada elsewhere than on a Canadian ship and his father, or in the case of a person born out of wedlock, his mother
(1)	was born in Canada or on a Canadian ship and had not become an alien at the time of that person's birth, or
(ii) was, at the time of that person's birth, a British subject who had Canadian domicile, if, before the 1st day of January 1947, that person had not become an alien, and has either been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence or is a minor.
Section 6 goes on-and remember this applies to a Canadian citizen:
6. (1) A person who is a Canadian citizen under paragraph (b) of section 4 or under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 5 ceases to be a Canadian citizen upon the expiration of one year after he attains the age of twenty-one years unless, after attaining that age and before the expiration of the said year,
(a)	he asserts his Canadian citizenship by a declaration of retention thereof, registered in accordance with the regulations; and
(b)	being a national or citizen of a country other than Canada, he files in accordance with the regulations a declaration renouncing the nationality or citizenship of that country.
This is one ground which is singularly applicable to the natural born Canadian, and in consequence of which he can lose his citizenship. Moreover, it is a matter not taken into consideration in the present bill.
There is also a further ground upon which a natural born Canadian can lose his citizenship, and one which has no application whatsoever to the naturalized Canadian. I refer the house to section 20 of the present act, subsection 1:
20. (1) Where the responsible parent of a minor child ceases to be a Canadian citizen under section 15, 16, or 17, the child thereupon ceases to be a Canadian citizen if he is or thereupon becomes, under the law of any country other than Canada, a national or citizen of that country.
(2)	Where the responsible parent of a minor child ceases to be a Canadian citizen under section 18 or 19, the governor in council may, in his discretion, direct that the said child shall cease to be a Canadian citizen if he is or thereupon becomes, under the law of any country other than Canada, a national or citizen of that country.


I submit to the house that there are sections which apply exclusively to naturalized Canadians with regard to the revocation of citizenship or the losing of citizenship through time lapse. I also point out that there are sections which apply only to a natural born Canadian with regard to revocation of citizenship, or time lapse, and on this basis alone it is my contention that the bill presented to the house by the hon. member is no good at all.
The purpose of the measure is to introduce complete equality of status, and that is commendable, but how is this to be done until sections 4, 18, 20 and 19(1) of the act are repealed?
This is the first reason why I consider the bill to be a bad one, and why I cannot support it even though the principle set out is commendable. If hon. members will read through the citizenship act, as I did after this bill came to my attention-as a matter of fact I read it very thoroughly-I think they will agree with me that in Canada today, in general there is equality as between the natural born citizen and the naturalized Canadian. There are, perhaps, some occasions on which a natural born Canadian can lose his citizenship and some occasions on which a naturalized Canadian can lose his citizenship. There is not exact equality, but in general there is equality. This bill purports to do something which has already been done. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in presenting this bill to the house. I do not doubt his motives at all, but I say that in Canada today bona fide loyal Canadians, whether natural bom or naturalized who have committed no offence against the crown or against the Official Secrets Act, and who have not committed fraud in an application for citizenship, enjoy complete equality in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: No, he does not.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: He
does.


Harold Edward Winch: He can be deported.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: May I also remind the house that this bill purports to deal only with disloyal Canadians, that is the point I am now trying to make. There is no quarrel before the house now with regard to the revocation of citizenship where there has been fraud or misrepresentation or concealment of fact in an application for citizenship. The only dispute arising now is with regard to treason. On first look at the bill and the explanatory note, which by the way refers to equality of

the status of Canadians, it looks like it refers to all Canadians. But I want to make this point clear and it is an important one. This bill in fact and in principle deals only with the subject matter of disloyal Canadians.
Hon. members might wonder why I am on my feet talking about this. I am a natural born Canadian, not a new Canadian in this country, but in my constituency and in the constituency of Winnipeg North we have probably 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the new Canadians who have settled in Winnipeg. This provision with regard to revocation of citizenship of naturalized Canadians who leave this country and will not return to answer a charge of treason is a very important matter to the new Canadians in those two constituencies. To the new Canadians in my constituency I know it is very important. They want it retained. I am sure that if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will take the opportunity to talk to some of our new Canadians he would realize that this is so.
The only thing he is asking for in this bill is that equality should be given to all disloyal Canadians. Let us make that point clear. If that is not so, I enjoin my friends to my right to show me where I am wrong.


Leon David Crestohl: Would the hon. member like to answer a question on that very point? He speaks very eloquently about the measure being a bill to deal with disloyal Canadians. Can he indicate where it deals with disloyal Canadians who are native born? It deals only with disloyal Canadians who are naturalized. I would agree with him entirely if he could point out where the measure deals with disloyal Canadians who are natural born.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: the hon. member for Cartier would look over our citizenship act I am sure he would agree with me that at the present time in Canada we have in general equality between our naturalized Canadians and our natural born Canadians.


Leon David Crestohl: With this exception.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: agree with him on that point. The only further consideration that this bill brings out is the repeal of subsection (1) of section 19 which deals with the charge of treason, which is one part of it. The other part has to do with an application for citizenship based on fraud. There is no dispute on the second part in so far as I am concerned. Therefore, the bill narrows down only to this one provision of revoking citizenship with regard to treason.
Canadian Citizenship Act
The explanatory note of the bill reads:
The purpose of the amendment is to give complete equality of status with natural born citizens to citizens other than natural born citizens by removing the remaining discrimination in the present law.
Therefore, the only remaining discrimination in the present law is the fact that naturalized Canadians who commit an act of treason outside of this country have their citizenship revoked. Thus, the only persons that this bill deals with are disloyal Canadians and it says in effect that it is wrong to have discrimination with regard to disloyal Canadians. Let us make it fair for all. Let us take away this revocation of citizenship of disloyal naturalized Canadians. I cannot see where I am wrong when I say that the only Canadians this bill deals with at all are disloyal Canadians. The bona fide, honest, loyal Canadians, regardless of whether naturalized or natural born, are equal in every respect in this country and have no consideration at all in this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question? I did not want to interrupt his argument. My question is, does not this remaining provision in the existing act refer to people who have been accused and never tried and never convicted? Is it not true that the amendment for which the hon. gentleman voted at the last session made it impossible for the governor in council in the future to revoke the citizenship of a person like Mr. Fred Rose who was convicted and subsequently left the country? His citizenship was revoked when I was minister but it could not be revoked since the amendment for which the hon. gentleman voted, and which was passed by the house at the last session. What the hon. member is saying is that an accused person should be deprived of his citizenship but a convicted person should not.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: The
hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is trying to wriggle out of it. He is not denying what I am saying.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking the question.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: will answer the question. What he is saying is this. If a naturalized Canadian in this country is charged with treason and stands trial his citizenship will not be revoked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Even though he leaves the country.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: He
says that is all right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the law as you
made it.

Canadian Citizenship Act


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: The
hon. member is saying it is all right; he has not got an amendment to that in this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because your minister
amended it at the last session and you voted for it.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: What the hon. member is saying is that if a person goes outside this country and commits an act of treason it is wrong to revoke his citizenship. That is the only point he is dealing with in this bill. He is saying, let us be fair. If we are going to do this for just disloyal naturalized Canadians, let us also do it for disloyal natural born Canadians, or let us not do it for either. But the point still remains that the bill deals only with disloyal Canadians-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Accused and not tried.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Accused of disloyalty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the new bill of rights.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: The
hon. member probably had that in mind.
I would like to clear up some misunderstanding here. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) says that the governor in council can revoke only the citizenship of a naturalized Canadian when he commits an act of treason and is abroad, but I would refer to section 19 (1) (a) of the act which reads:
Where in the opinion of the minister a doubt exists as to whether a person has ceased to be a Canadian citizen, the minister may refer the question to the commission or court referred to in subsection (4) of section 19 for a ruling and the decision of the commission or the court, as the case may be, shall be final.
(2) Upon the hearing of any reference under this section the commission or the court, as the case may be, may receive and base its decision upon evidence considered credible or trustworthy by it in the circumstances, and in respect of any such reference to a commission the provisions of subsection (5) of section 19 apply mutatis mutandis.
This certainly does not leave the discretion or the power entirely in the hands of the governor in council.
There is one further point I might make. Some members do not realize that this is not a question of automatic revocation. It is in the discretion of the governor in council. We may have an example of a naturalized Canadian who probably commits treason and whose citizenship may not be revoked until there is a definite, absolute finding that he will never return to Canada.
With regard to the second part of the bill which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate has proposed to this house, I submit

that he goes much farther than the way in which it is set out in the act today. With regard to the naturalized Canadian obtaining a certificate of citizenship by false representation or fraud or concealment of material facts, he would have this tried by the court, whatever court it may be, and the finding of this court shall be that the person shall be deemed never to have been a Canadian citizen. At the present time the governor in council acts only after the commission has met and all mitigating circumstances have been taken into consideration. Under the present act, if there are mitigating circumstances-and I know this has happened in the past, where fraud has been proven-the citizenship has not been revoked. All those circumstances are taken into consideration. Once you place this matter before a court for a finding of fraud which is based in statute law, the finding of that court of guilty or not guilty cannot be swayed by mitigating circumstances. This part of the proposed bill goes much farther. It is much stricter and much sterner for the naturalized Canadians than is the present act today.
I have attempted to give the house some of my thoughts on this bill. It is probably the most muddled and confused bill I have ever seen in connection with one of our statutes for quite a long while and I am not talking only about my experience in the house. I have had occasion in previous years to read the bills passed by this parliament. For the reasons I have outlined and the facts I have tried to place before the house I sincerely cannot support this measure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit me to ask one question? Was he in the last part of his speech asking for the substitution of government by order in council for the rule of law in the courts?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: believe that is a very facetious question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; it is a very serious question. We used to have most serious speeches made by your leader on that subject.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: I am
sure any serious speeches made by my leader were listened to and well received by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The rules of courts of justice in this land are definite and declared. There are certain reasons why these citizenship matters have as yet never been put before our present courts of law. As the ex-minister of immigration the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate realizes what they are. In fact, if there is anyone in the house who knows the reasons better than I do it is the same gentleman who asked the question.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to say at the outset that it is not my intention to go into the legal aspects of the bill and the amendment contained therein. That has been done by my colleagues. Rather, I should like to express my opinions, impressions and observations as a naturalized Canadian. Before one can be a naturalized Canadian he must first be an immigrant. Consequently, he must meet the many requirements of the department of immigration. He must comply with the laws and other requirements of the country and he must be able to speak one of the official languages. In other words, he must have the right qualifications to be able to obtain Canadian citizenship. The citizenship that he receives entitles him to all the rights and privileges of our Canadian democratic system but he must qualify for the honour of citizenship and rightly so.
The decision of the immigrant who comes to the country was very likely precipitated by one of the following reasons. First, the economic conditions of his homeland were such that he was unable to make his living. Second, the political atmosphere and the conduct of state affairs in his homeland were such that it was unbearable for him to live under those conditions.
New immigrants who seek entry to Canada can be divided into two distinctly different groups. We find those who have a burning desire to come to Canada and make Canada their home. After they establish themselves they adapt readily to local conditions and it seems that they prosper quite well too. They seldom if ever become charges of the government. They are true immigrants and inevitably become true Canadians too.
In the other group we find people whose intentions are altogether different from those of the first group. They come here more or less for materialistic reasons. If the climate is right and they prosper reasonably soon they may stay here for a long time. They may locate in other places or eventually they may take out their citizenship papers.
Whether an immigrant comes to Canada for one reason or the other or belongs to one group or the other, his national ties with his homeland and his ties with his own people will stay with him for a long time and may never be severed entirely. This is a very dangerous situation indeed, and if he finds himself in such an unhappy position, feelings for his homeland and for his people may readily lead him to commit acts that will be detrimental to his adopted country, Canada, and eventually may result in deportation and
Canadian Citizenship Act loss of citizenship. In times of wars, revolutions or uprisings this is not uncommon. It is indeed a tragedy if he should lose his citizenship and the government should be forced to apply the laws and regulations of the Canadian Citizenship Act.
On the other hand, could one expect our government not to take the necessary steps to protect the interests of Canada and its people? The rights and privileges that the Canadian people possess did not just happen. They were achieved by these people through hard work, through sacrifices, and in many cases at the cost of their lives. Is it then unreasonable to apply to offenders the laws that are spelled out in the act which the bill before us seeks to amend?
Much as I respect the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), I cannot see any reason to amend the act by deleting paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 19 which now reads as follows:
(a) having been charged with the offence of treason under the Criminal Code or with an offence under the Official Secrets Act, has failed or refused to return to Canada voluntarily within such time as may be prescribed in a notice sent by the minister to such person at his last known address and has not appeared at the preliminary inquiry into such offence or at the trial of such offence, or both, as the case may be.
The listing of these offences is very important to the new Canadian, many of whom are not too familiar with the official languages and such people could interpret the provision wrongly if the section were to be amended as suggested. By having the offences listed in the act there is less chance of offences being committed. The proposed amendment reads as follows:
A Canadian citizen other than a natural born citizen shall not lose his citizenship for any cause for which a natural born citizen would not lose his citizenship. Where it is established to the satisfaction of the court that a person has obtained a certificate of naturalization or Canadian citizenship by false representation or fraud or by concealment of material circumstances such certificate shall be revoked and such person shall be deemed never to have been a Canadian citizen.
The other point that has been brought forward in argument on other occasions is that a natural born citizen is treated differently from a naturalized one. It is interpreted from this that we have first class and second class citizens in our country. In my opinion, this is indeed a very flimsy argument and one must be careful not to use it because the expression "second class citizen" could be offensive to the naturalized citizen and unjust as well. I have never heard so much about first and second class citizens as I have since coming to this chamber. I am making this assertion with some feeling. This subject has been played up so much during the last

Canadian Citizenship Act session that people who never heard of it before are beginning to wonder if there is such a thing as a first and second grade of Canadians in the opinion of some people in Canada.
Let us remember that one-third of all our population consists of stock other than English and French. About one-third of these people, at one time or another, came here as immigrants and became naturalized Canadians. They are not second class citizens. Surely, the 20,000 voters in my constituency of Humboldt-Melfort, who are of many nationalities and who voted for me, were fully aware of the fact that I am a naturalized Canadian. I must say, in all fairness and with respect for those people in my riding who voted for the other candidates, that they did so not because they did not want to be represented in parliament by a naturalized Canadian or second class citizen.
I believe every naturalized Canadian realizes that he is an adopted child of this country and is most anxious to prove himself to be a worthy member of this Canadian family. He knows that he may share not only in the benefits but must do his part to make Canada a country in which justice prevails for all citizens on an equitable basis. What I have just stated, Mr. Speaker, is not merely my own opinion about a naturalized Canadian. I should like to quote from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of January 28, in which Mrs. Laura Schippers, a Dutch born immigrant, had this to say:
Laura Schippers was so pleased at being made a citizen of Canada that she wanted to shout about it.
So, the Dutch-born Mrs. Schippers did the next best thing-she wrote about it.
She told friends here of a card she had printed and mailed to about 50 friends and kinfolk.
The inscription:
"With gratitude to God and good friends and with deep love for Canada, I hereby announce that today, after overcoming many difficulties, I had the great privilege to pledge my allegiance and loyalty to Canada and her sovereign and that from this day on I am a Canadian citizen."
Mrs. Schippers, the editor of a Dutch-language weekly newspaper published here, paid $15 to have the cards printed.
"It was my own idea," she said. "I was proud of becoming a Canadian and I wanted to tell people about it."
I am sure Mrs. Schippers could never have written the inscription on the card or spoken those words had she felt that she had not been given complete equality of status with natural born citizens. She felt that the citizenship that she received gave her the same equality as any other citizen in the country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with the proposed amendment to this section, and I will vote against it.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise in support of this amendment to the citizenship act which, if it passes, will make all Canadians equal and remove any discriminatory feature in that act. I believe it is most appropriate at this time that all members of the house should do everything they can to remove any discrimination in any act, and particularly in the citizenship act because we have had notice of the government's intention to introduce this year the long heralded bill of rights. I should think that a bill of rights, if it means anything to us, should mean we will have greater freedom in this country than we had before.	Otherwise, there
would be no reason for introducing it. I would think that we should not have any skeletons in the closet in Canada when we introduce a bill of rights.
Now, by continuing the citizenship act as it now stands we are, in fact, saying that certain members of this house, and very good Canadians, have not the same rights in Canada as citizens as most other Canadians have. We have heard some of these men speak here today. I believe this amendment provides the proper safeguards against anyone trying to obtain citizenship by fraud. In such a case a person would be deemed never to have been a Canadian citizen. The same provision would apply in the case of an alien getting a birth certificate by fraud. He would be deemed never to have been a Canadian. When a natural born citizen commits a crime, such as treason, and a naturalized citizen commits the same crime, they both should be subjected to the same punishment.
I believe that the people in the county of Welland who are naturalized citizens would want me to vote for this amendment. I realize that some people might lose their citizenship by misadventure. According to section 19 (1) a man has only to be charged with treason. He may be living in a foreign country, and if he were charged with treason in our courts how would he know he had been so charged? The minister sends out a notice that he is to appear in a certain place within a certain time, and that notice has to be sent to his last known address. This letter might not arrive. We have an excellent postal service in Canada, but sometimes we read about a letter being delivered a year after it was sent. That is true since our present Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) has been at the head of the department. I think there is certainly discrimination in the bill as it now stands and I want to vote for the amendment.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) rose in his place to enter into this debate, even if only for the space of two and one-half minutes. I had thought that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) was not getting much support from the other members of his party, that they either did not wish to commit themselves on this issue or, if they did so, they could not find it in their hearts to support this measure and that the hon. member had brought to bear the weight of his eloquence to keep them silent.
I think this measure is something that the members of the Liberal party should be talking about because in the short space of time during which I intend to talk on this measure I propose to go back and to link this matter up to the conditions as they were when the hon. member who introduced this bill was minister of citizenship and immigration. In order to do that I wish to refer to Hansard for 1958, page 4690, and what was said at the time when the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced amendments respecting discrimination, revocation of citizenship, et cetera, in Bill No. C-58 which was up for second reading. At that time the minister gave an explanation of how the act stood at that time and of how the bill proposed to amend it. She said this:
Subsection (1) of section 19 of the present act gives the governor in council power to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Canadians for the various reasons enumerated in that subsection. Briefly the grounds are that the person has: 1. assisted an enemy of Canada in time of war; 2, obtained his citizenship by false representation or fraud; 3, has resided outside of Canada for six years and has not maintained substantial connection with Canada; 4, has resided outside of Canada for two years in a country of which he was a citizen before he became a Canadian citizen and has not maintained substantial connection with Canada; 5, while out of Canada has shown disaffection or disloyalty to Her Majesty; or 6, has been convicted by a Canadian court of an offence involving disaffection or disloyalty to Her Majesty.
As can be seen, section 5 is a sort of an omnibus clause which will cover almost anything. Section 4 is extremely restrictive. Yet from my search of Hansard-and I have gone back a few years-I can find no mention by members of the Liberal party as to what they thought of these particular restrictive sections. In order to give the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate full credit I may say that in his opening remarks he pointed out that he expected this sort of attack to be thrown back at him,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, not an attack.


Ernest James Broome: -namely that he had done nothing when he had the power to act; and he told us the reason. As far as I can make
Canadian Citizenship Act out, the reason was that there was no demand until suddenly the hon. member happened to be talking to a senator in the other place but who was then a member of the house and to a good friend of mine, namely James Sinclair, a former colleague of his in the cabinet. These gentlemen who were immigrants pointed out that changes should be made in the Immigration Act,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The citizenship act.


Ernest James Broome: -and it was only at this point that the hon. member became aware of the fact that the previous act was not the most perfect act with regard to the matter of treating people fairly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent what I said. Perhaps he would allow me very briefly to correct him on that point. What I said was that an agitation arose in the summer of 1957 and that agitation having arisen I then consulted these gentlemen. The agitation arose in the country and the hon. member's own party took the view that there should be equality.


Ernest James Broome: What the hon. member is
saying then is that the feelings expressed by his former cabinet colleague, namely Mr. Sinclair, became apparent in the summer of 1957 but were not apparent during the preceding four years when he was a member of the cabinet and participating in cabinet discussions on various bills and undoubtedly participating in the discussions on amendments to the bill that the hon. member carried through in 1956. I therefore find it most strange that members of the opposition have not had more to say on this point than they have had to say up until now.


Leon David Crestohl: We should like to have a vote.


Ernest James Broome: When the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) brought in this bill, she expressed certain other opinions and I think they are worth repeating at this time. For instance, as reported at page 4698 of Hansard of September 5, 1958, she said:
Nothing in this bill imposes anything; there is no restriction imposed whatsoever. Everything that has been done in amending the citizenship act by this bill has been towards the removal of restrictions and discriminations which existed in the old act.
Then in concluding her remarks she had this to say and I think perhaps this is the heart and core of the philosophy behind the changes made in the citizenship act. I quote from page 4699 of Hansard as follows:
It takes a peculiar kind of courage to tear up roots and go to a new land. It takes a special kind

Canadian Citizenship Act of initiative to start a new life, and frequently it takes boundless energy to establish oneself in a new country. These were qualities that were possessed by our forefathers, those people who made this country what it is today. Because of that we recognize those qualities in those who seek naturalized status in Canada, and because of that we welcome these newcomers as kindred souls. It is true there may be among them those who will betray their fellows. It was ever thus. We have among us, among our natural bom, those who would betray us, unfortunately.
However, we have faith. We have faith in these new people; we have faith in these newcomers and we are willing to give them evidence of that faith. We believe that in the amendments to this act which we propose in this bill we are giving them just that evidence.
Although I am a native born Canadian, and represent a riding whose people are predominantly of Anglo-Saxon extraction, nevertheless I have in my riding considerable numbers of new Canadians. They are mainly people who have come over here from Germany and include lesser numbers who came from Holland and Belgium. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. The new Canadians who have come over here have come from lands in which the people are much more conscious of the activities of agents provocateurs, of traitors who came into their former homelands and helped to destroy the democratic institutions of those countries. They know the story of Poland, Czechoslovakia and the three small Baltic states which disappeared so long ago, namely Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. They are familiar with the dangers which are inherent in this world today, when we have this tremendous conflict between two ideologies, two ways of life, one of which has expressed itself as firmly intent on and forcing on us their way of life.
Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to put an end to such a state of affairs. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Smith) that what is being attempted in this bill is to make it possible that traitors shall be able to maintain their Canadian citizenship, that they shall be able to travel around the country in which they have sought asylum, waving their certificates of Canadian citizenship with impunity. That citizenship will not be taken away from them if they return and stand trial. They have all the rights of the native born Canadian in that respect.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the penalty for treason is not a light one for either native born or naturalized citizens. In many instances the penalty of death is mandatory. In other instances it is life imprisonment; and for what might be considered lesser forms of treason it is imprisonment up to a maximum of 14 years. Treason is not a light offence. It is something from which we must protect ourselves. I would submit

that when a person comes over here and takes out citizenship, and then commits an act of treason, it could be assumed that that person most likely committed fraud to secure his citizenship, because if he became a traitor after he came here I think he must have been a traitor when he came here. He must have come here for a certain purpose along that line, and was finally caught out.
The only result of this bill would be to give to a self-confessed traitor-because his refusal to return is a confession of guilt-the status of a Canadian citizen. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the new Canadians do not want that any more than I do, because they know what these people have done. I certainly admire the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) for his very agile performance with regard to the discussions and the amendments passed at the last session, and his presentation when he brought forward this bill. He tried to say last session that we had done nothing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh no.


Ernest James Broome: He stated, "not gone very far along the road". Then he went on to say, "Why not go all the way?" There was a minimizing of what had been done, and it was a natural minimizing on the part of the hon. member, because it was he who did not do it when he could have, and the present minister has. Therefore it is a very natural reaction on the part of the hon. member that he would not like the amendments which came in last session, and his party would not like the way the new Canadians had responded to the appeal of this party that all Canadians shall be treated equally. As I read the sections, the restrictions and the discriminations which were in the old act, I remember that the hon. member stood up and gave a tremendous song and dance about the discrimination which this bill, as he pointed out, said nothing about. That was done in the amendments to the act as brought forward last session by this administration. I suspect that the hon. member is suffering from an attack of sour grapes.
Mr. Speaker, there is not much more that I wish to add to this debate except to say that if ever there was a red herring drawn across this chamber, that red herring is this bill. It gives nothing but consolation to the enemy. It gives nothing to the new Canadians who now do have equality. It gives nothing to the native born. It gives nothing to anyone. It is simply a face-saving measure if ever there was one, and I certainly will be pleased to vote against it.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, I belong to that group in this house who, with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. FEBRUARY 5, 1959
Mandziuk) and the hon. member tor Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp) are naturalized Canadians. I have felt and hoped that if it were possible for the members of the house to be stripped of diehard political allegiance, we would have heard speeches of a different character from both sides of the house. Now I say this to hon. members most respectfully.


An hon. Member:: Your side too?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes, and from our side too, indeed. I say that if it were possible to be stripped of political allegiance, if we did not feel we were bound by diehard political allegiance and could rid ourselves of politics, and there was no such thing as talking the bill out as a device of refusing to vote on the measure, I think, as I say, we would have heard a different type of speech. I am not saying that accusingly; I am saying this sincerely.


An hon. Member:: And what about your own?


Leon David Crestohl: What about our own? We would be speaking in the way we have been speaking. If the hon. members opposite were not tied by those strong fetters of loyalty, rightly or wrongly, to their party I think you would have heard a different type of speech.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the thing a little objectively. What is the issue here? Actually, there is no quarrel between the minister and the members on this side of the house. I would like to go a little further and say that I am prepared, in order to divest myself of party allegiance, to say that the present government has been most considerate and most helpful in matters of citizenship and immigration. I say that very sincerely. I would certainly praise to the skies the amendments which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) brought in at the last session, in which she eliminated a great many of the difficulties and obstacles in the Canadian Citizenship Act. We feel that having gone so far the minister should have gone just one step further and eliminated all of them.
I also have the feeling that perhaps the minister will, even at this late stage, think about the matter and eliminate these last obstacles which exist. I say to hon. members opposite: face the obstacle and let us eliminate it. If we think there is an obstacle, let us eliminate it; if there is a doubt about an obstacle which may still be present in this act, it is the wisest course to eliminate it. Why leave a doubt? Hon. members opposite have argued very logically and very loyally that there is no obstacle, that there is no discrimination. I do not wish to insist that
Canadian Citizenship Act there is any discrimination under the act. I do not think the government intends to discriminate under the citizenship act; I will go even further and say that the government does not intend to discriminate.


Michael Starr: We corrected the discrimination which existed for years when the Liberal government was in power.


Leon David Crestohl: I said a moment ago that I gave the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship full marks and full credit for the amendments she brought in last session. 1 praised her to the skies. But let us look at this matter squarely and decide whether there are any doubts still left in the act. We contend that there is still one element of doubt in the act which might lead to some discrimination, and if this situation exists we urge that the minister should eliminate its cause. I will even suggest that if the government should wish to take this on as a government measure it would certainly complete the job of completely eliminating any discrimination which may exist in the act.
I am going to analyse for a moment what it is that we are actually talking about. What hon. members have been saying is that a traitor to Canada should not be travelling about as a Canadian citizen. I agree with that. Traitors to Canada should not be able to travel about and flaunt their citizenship. However, I say this; traitors can be both native born and naturalized. Why should a native born traitor be able to travel about all over Europe and all over the world with a birth certificate showing that he was Canadian born, and prove it by that, whereas-


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: that is the case, is it your opinion that this bill does exactly what you say and provides for that?


Leon David Crestohl: Provides for what?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Provides for the revocation of citizenship for both natural born and naturalized Canadians.


Leon David Crestohl: The working of this bill would give that result.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Leon David Crestohl: I beg your pardon. If the act would read that Canadian born subjects can have their citizenship revoked if they were found guilty of treason or if they refused to turn up for trial, I would accept it. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) was frank enough to admit that if the citizenship act also made provision that a natural born traitor would also lose his status-oh, the hon. member can make his speech later- with that we would all agree. Why should

Canadian Citizenship Act it be stated in law that only a naturalized citizen, it he commits treason, would lose his citizenship? Why do you not also say that a natural born citizen who commits treason should also lose his citizenship? If hon. members would allow me to go on for just a moment-
We set up the offence of treason, the offence of disloyalty to the crown, as the yardstick by which we say we will cancel or annul a citizenship certificate. If that is the offence, why do we not set up an equal punishment for the same offence committed by Canadian born citizens? I am in complete agreement.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: I just want to make this point: I am in complete agreement with what the hon. member is saying, but it is his opinion that this bill would bring about what you were saying just now.


Leon David Crestohl: I believe so. I will go a step further and say that even if it does not agree verbatim with all that the hon. member thinks I am saying, if we are all of the same opinion about the principle that a naturalized Canadian should not be punished any more severely than a native born citizen, then certainly we should send this measure through its second reading and establish a principle which is acceptable to the whole house. I do not think there is anyone in the house who disagrees with this principle. Let us make it law.
The mere fact that this bill is presented from this side of the house colours the discussion, I suppose, with political implications. I say to the minister that I will certainly support it if this measure comes back in another form and eliminates the one doubt which still remains in the citizenship act and which might-I say "might"-create discrimination. All the intentions of the act will be fully served if you say that a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen shall both lose their citizenship if they are found guilty of treason. At present, one does, and the other does not.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: This bill revokes the charge of treason.


Leon David Crestohl: I will tell you what this bill does. This bill does something amazing. I will tell you what it does, and I intend to read from the minister's statement at page 4690 of Hansard of September 5, 1958. Explaining her amendment, she said:
The amendment will repeal the existing subsection (1) of section 19 altogether, but it must be noted that under the amendment the naturalized Canadian citizen can still have his Canadian citizenship revoked by the governor in council if he is

charged with a treasonable offence and, being abroad, fails to return to Canada and stand trial for that offence.
Then the minister goes on, and this is most interesting:
If such person does return to Canada and is convicted, he will suffer the punishment prescribed under the Criminal Code or the Official Secrets Act for the offence but he will not be subject to loss of citizenship.
That is anomalous. A man who comes back and is tried and convicted for treason still does not lose his citizenship-


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is an opportune time for me to interrupt the hon. member.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was attempting to the best of my ability to point out that in reality the bill is really a simple one, and one which in principle we are all agreed upon. I also pointed out that I had the feeling- rightly or wrongly; I think rightly-that if we were not bound by party loyalties and party discipline we would have had a different type of discussion on this bill.
I wish to point out why in my opinion this is in reality a simple matter. I refer hon. members to the explanatory note in which subsection (1) of section 19 of the Canadian Citizenship Act is quoted. I shall read just two lines of it:
The governor in council may, in his discretion, order that any person other than a natural born Canadian citizen shall cease to be a Canadian citizen-
And so on. If the house is really serious in eliminating a discrimination or any difference, even though it might be only a seeming difference and perhaps not even a basic difference, that one might suspect exists, why does the minister not simply delete the words, "other than a natural born Canadian citizen", so that the act would then read:
The governor in council may, in his discretion, order that any person shall cease to be a Canadian citizen-
I think that would simplify it.


Mr. Pugh:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes.


David Vaughan Pugh: Has anyone in Canada the power to take away citizenship from a Canadian? If they have, what citizenship would the hon. member ascribe to him?


Leon David Crestohl: If the hon. member would read the citizenship act he would find that there are any number of reasons why citizenship may be removed. The act gives a number of instances when that might happen.
Let me point out to the hon. member that at the last session the minister removed from the act six different grounds which were disabilities. As I said earlier, the minister deserves much credit for removing those six disabilities with respect to citizenship. Look at the way the act reads now. Again, I appeal to hon. members, for the sake of discussion, to read this section purely objectively as lawyers, as responsible Canadian representatives, only with this thought in mind. The act says "any person" and then these words are thrown in, "other than a natural born Canadian citizen". Why should we have these words in the act if there is no difference between one type of citizen and the other? I suggest to the minister that if she were to bring in an amendment-let it be a government measure-to section 19, subsection (1), simply to delete the words "other than a natural born Canadian citizen" she would eliminate any semblance or any suspicion of any difference between the two types of citizens that we now suspect might exist. I cannot give the minister advice, but I can suggest that this would definitely clear the air.
Let me point out something else. Maybe we do not notice it at the moment but there are other sections in the act which again speak of a person other than a Canadian citizen. Section 19 was completely deleted. People can lose their citizenship if they are absent from Canada for a certain length of time and if they take an oath of allegiance to another country. That is fine; no one opposes that. We do not oppose it. It is good law; it is good citizenship law. What I oppose is its application only to naturalized citizens. We say that it should apply not to naturalized citizens only. If it applied to everyone there would be no quarrel at all; we would have one class of citizenship and we would not discriminate against a second class. I respectfully say to the house that if it is preferred that a traitor should lose his citizenship, that is fine. I accept that; I certainly would follow it. But do not simply say that one type of traitor, namely the traitor who was not born in Canada, should be treated differently from a traitor who was born in this country. Any type of traitor to Canada, anyone who is disloyal to Her Majesty, anyone who is disloyal to Canada should lose his citizenship, if that is the law, but that means anyone and not just one class.
Canadian Citizenship Act


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: hesitate to interrupt the hon. member's argument, but this was not made clear before recess.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. The hon. member may ask the hon. member who has the floor whether he may ask a question. That is as far as the hon. member may go.


Leon David Crestohl: He may ask the question.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: That is all I wanted to do. I did not want to interrupt the trend of the argument. The hon. member is advocating that natural born citizens should lose their citizenship for treason outside the country. On that basis would he say that the bill before the house advocates the same principle?


Leon David Crestohl: The bill before the house
advocates the principle that all Canadian citizens should be treated alike, should be considered alike.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: No.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: One further question: Would the hon. member agree that the repeal of subsection (1) of section 19 as set out in this bill removes any reason whereby a naturalized Canadian, or any Canadian, could lose his citizenship on account of a charge of treason when he is outside the country?


Leon David Crestohl: If he is summoned to come back to Canada and fails to come back he loses his citizenship, but why should we not have the same rule for a Canadian born citizen who is charged with treason, who is outside the country, is summoned to come back and does not come back? Why should we say he does not lose his citizenship?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: do not disagree with that; I disagree with the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. The hon. member for Cartier has the floor.


Leon David Crestohl: As far as we are concerned, we do not care how it is done, whether you take away the citizenship of a traitor who is a natural born Canadian or not. It is immaterial, so long as it is equal. It is equality of both classes of citizens that we seek.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The bill does not say so.


Leon David Crestohl: The bill provides for making all citizens equal.


Thomas Miller Bell: It does not.


Leon David Crestohl: If the bill does not say so I trust all members will bear with me when I say that if the deletion of the words "other than a natural born Canadian citizen" in the
734	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship Act act as it now stands would meet all requirements then I respectfully submit that the minister could bring in an amendment to that effect. As a matter of fact if the minister will not bring in an amendment to that effect I believe I will do so. The hon. member for Marquette certainly made my case very strong when he, honourably, fairly and discharging his duty as a good citizen, said that if the other provision were in the act he would be satisfied and would accept it. I do not remember whether that was his exact language but he certainly said he was not aware that the same provision is not made for natural born as for naturalized citizens. I see the hon. member for Marquette is nodding his head in agreement.
That is all we ask. Make them both equal. Either deprive them both of citizenship or do not deprive them of citizenship. In that way we will create equality, and that is what I say the bill calls for.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Leon David Crestohl: Certainly.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: We are discussing the bill as it is. You and I were in agreement on certain points but the bill is off the beam.


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. member for Marquette may have his opinion. As a matter of fact, on the motion for second reading we are really discussing the principle of the bill. If we agree on the principle the bill can be sent to a committee which can revise, redraft and amend it and bring in a measure that will be acceptable to the entire house. When we are dealing with a measure of this kind I do not believe that it should be felt to be necessary to talk out the bill because of a certain party discipline. I am willing to suggest, as I did before, that it be brought in as a government measure. We do not want any particular credit for it. We would like to see the minister remedy a fault which I think was left unremedied at the last session.
There are some interesting sections of the act that we should bear in mind. I should like to refer, for example, to section 22. Let us look at section 22. We have not talked about it but it is exactly in point. Section 22 reads as follows:
A Canadian citizen other than a natural born Canadian citizen-
"Other than a natural born Canadian citizen." Again we have the setting up of a difference between the natural born and the naturalized.
-is, subject to the provisions of this act-

Before I continue reading this section, may I tell the house that this section may satisfy a great many members as to the point we are debating. I will start again. Here is what the section says:
A Canadian citizen other than a natural born Canadian citizen is, subject to the provisions of this act, entitled to all rights, powers and privileges and is subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a natural born Canadian citizen is entitled or subject and, on and after becoming a Canadian citizen, subject to the provisions of this act, has a like status to that of a natural born Canadian citizen.
This is a beautiful section, Mr. Speaker. By this section the law declares that a naturalized citizen is entitled to all the rights, powers and privileges of a natural born citizen. It is a magnificent section, but why include in it the words "subject to the provisions of this act", which, incidentally, appear twice? That is because there is a reference to another class of citizens that may not be able to enjoy all the rights which section 22 is intended to give them.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: It
refers to both classes.


Leon David Crestohl: Of course, and all we are seeking is equality. Either delete from section 22 the words "subject to the provisions of this act" or delete from section 19 (1) the words "other than a natural born Canadian citizen." Either the one or the other, I respectfully submit, will give that equality which I think every hon. member would like to see given. Certainly if such a measure were introduced by the government I would be the first one to vote for it and so would many, if not all, of my colleagues on this side.
What is more, the law in this regard would then be on all fours with the bill respecting human rights introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). That is something we must not lose sight of at this time. In that bill is set forth the right of the individual to the protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex. I say that if we delete these words to which I have referred we will be deleting something that certainly can be interpreted as creating a discrimination. If it is not a discrimination, then there is no harm in deleting it. If it is a discrimination, then we should delete it. It is our duty as members of parliament to do so. I believe that the basic principle, equality of all citizens, is such that most hon. members would accept it and, in order to deal with the matter adequately, I would think they should be agreeable to sending the bill to a committee for redrafting. I do not think anybody quarrels with the basic principle, and because the

bill as now drafted perhaps does not meet all requirements I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron):
That this bill should not now be read a second time but that the subject-matter be referred to a special committee to be designated for the purpose to draft a bill which will ensure complete equality of status between naturalized and natural born Canadian citizens.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is an awful slap at Jack.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I drafted it.


Leon David Crestohl: I might say that I consulted the hon. member who introduced the bill and I have received his permission to introduce this amendment in an attempt to remedy a bill based on a very important principle on which I think members on all sides of the house are agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: You are still getting permission from the front bench.


Mr. Caron:: What do you do?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We still have a front bench.


Leon David Crestohl: That is the courteous thing to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Before putting the amendment I should like to consider it for a while and then decide whether or not it is in order. The hon. member for Westmorland.


Mr. Creaghan:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I will read the amendment first. I wanted to make that explanation. The amendment reads as follows:
That this bill should not now be read a second time but that the subject-matter be referred to a special committee to be designated for the purpose to draft a bill which will ensure complete equality of status between naturalized and natural born Canadian citizens.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have read the amendment to which I may say, as the hon. member for Cartier said, I have no objection whatsoever. With great diffidence, is it not the appropriate course to put the amendment and then reserve your judgment with respect to whether or not it is in order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: That is what I have done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thank you.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, I do not think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. The hon. member for Westmorland.
Mr. Pallet!: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I do not think you have actually
Canadian Citizenship Act put the amendment. You have read it, but you have not put it. I think there is a fine difference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that point could not be settled because it is a very material point indeed. It does seem to me that when an amendment has been offered by an hon. member, the amendment is then before the house and it is not competent to the Speaker to do anything but either rule it out of order immediately or reserve his decision on it. However, it is in the possession of the house. That is the very point I wanted to be sure was clearly understood. If we are in agreement there, I am quite satisfied.
Mr. Pallet!: The practice has been that you do not make a ruling at this time as to whether it is in order. The amendment is not in the possession of the house until you later make that ruling as to whether it is in order or not in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I have read the amendment and I am going to consider whether or not it is in order.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: think my opening remarks should be confined to the suggestion made by the last speaker, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). I do not take issue with his suggestion, in fact I accept it, when he says that this bill should not become a political football. However, after saying that, I also want to put on the record the fact that I do not believe that is the feeling or the purpose of the hon. member who introduced the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Without taking the slightest offence at what the hon. gentleman has said, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly an imputation of motive which I am sure is quite contrary to the rules of the house.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I am not certain as to the personal motive, but I feel quite confident of the political motive of the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid that in the interests of good order in the house and not because I take the faintest offence in this matter I shall have to insist on my question of privilege. It is one of the oldest and best established rules of the house that one member cannot impute personal or political motives, or indeed any other kind of motives to another hon. member. We listen to what people say in this house, we do not try to read their minds.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: It seems to me the hon. member has now had the opportunity of making three or four speeches. This is not a question of privilege at all. The hon. member did not directly say anything about the

Canadian Citizenship Act sponsor of the bill at all. He indicated that there were obvious reasons for him introducing this bill at this time, and I think he is quite in order in making those observations.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I had no intention of offending the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not care less.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I just want to continue by saying if that was not his intention, as he said, why did he not bring in an amendment to repeal part III of the act and substitute therefor a new part III. It seems to me that we have all read quite a lot about the political prophecies and writings of his late leader, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, whose initials are the same as my own,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no other resemblance.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: -concerning dividing the country and ruling.
In opening my remarks, I want to extend my personal congratulations to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), who so ably led off the debate in so far as the opposition to this bill is concerned. As hon. members know, I come from the province of New Brunswick. Unfortunately for us in the mari-times we have not received our full share of the growth in immigration which was witnessed in Canada since 1945. However, even though we have not many new citizens, we have a fair share of the ethnic groups who are, for the most part, natural born citizens. Outside of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I believe I am the first maritimer to speak on this bill.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Do you call him a maritimer?


An hon. Member:: He is a pseudo-maritimer.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: I feel called upon, therefore, to add my thoughts to this debate which has been before us for so many hours today.
As we all know, this act was originally passed in the year 1946 after a prolonged debate in the House of Commons which lasted approximately six weeks. At that time the then secretary of state, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), made a lengthy statement to the house on second reading. I think it appropriate at this time that I put on the record his remarks in so far as part III is concerned, that is the part dealing with the loss of citizenship. With your permission, I should like to refer to Hansard of 1946, page 508, where the hon. member for Essex East is recorded as saying:
Part III of the bill deals with the loss of Canadian citizenship. In general, there are now, and will be in future two types of loss of citizenship: loss by any citizen after the acquisition of

a foreign nationality, and loss of the citizenship of naturalized persons under prescribed conditions. The provisions with regard to loss upon the acquisition of a foreign nationality have not been substantially changed from those now in effect.
Then later on:
With regard to the remainder of this part, in my statement of October 22 I referred to the new provisions for automatic loss of citizenship by naturalized persons who stay abroad for six years or more and do not protect their citizenship. As I mentioned at that time, this provision does not apply to naturalized persons who have served in the armed forces of Canada. In addition, the six years do not run during absence as a representative of the Canadian government or a Canadian firm, or for other specified purposes.
Now, this is the important part:
The provisions for revocation of certificates of citizenship are virtually unchanged from those now in effect. The remainder of this part of the bill consists of ancillary provisions which, while new in form in some cases, bring in no new principles.
That is all the then secretary of state said when referring to this important part III of the bill. In that quotation he referred to his statement on October 22 of the previous year. This is found at page 1336 of Hansard for 1945, and I quote:
With regard to loss of Canadian citizenship, the conditions are the same as those at present for the loss of the status of British subject-with one addition. That addition is the insertion of a provision for automatic loss of citizenship by a naturalized person-
Later in that same paragraph, he says, when giving an example of what this means:
-Germans naturalized in Canada who returned to Germany in 1933 or 1934, whose absence was not known, and who now claim protection and benefits as Canadians. In many cases there is every reason to suspect that a great number of these people were ardent nazis and complete Germans during the war, however Canadian they may now profess to feel. In future, with the passage of this bill, this will not happen.
He was speaking of section 19 (1) before it was amended by the hon. lady in September, 1948.


Leon David Crestohl: In 1958.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: Yes, 1958. The only two items of contention before us are the question of fraud and the debate on treason or other acts of violence. We are part of the British commonwealth of nations. I think it should be of interest to the house if some comparison was made between the present law of Canada -and I am talking about the post-war law, including section 19 as amended in 1958- with the law of other commonwealth countries.
In the first place fraud, which is still covered in our act, is also a reason for losing naturalization in the United Kingdom. It is covered by the British nationality act of

1948 which has provisions identical with those o f the Canadian act prior to 1958. In Australia both citizens of registration as well as citizens by naturalization can lose their citizenship if they obtain entry into the country by fraud, misrepresentation, et cetera, as we have provided in our act. The same law prevails in New Zealand. In that country the law was originated in 1928, much prior to the introduction of the law in the United Kingdom and the other more famous commonwealth countries. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the provision with regard to fraud, which is now uniform throughout the commonwealth should certainly remain in the legislation. For that reason alone I take issue with Bill No. C-2 in its present form.
While speaking on fraud, I should like to suggest that perhaps part III-that is the part which deals with loss of citizenship- could be improved upon in so far as it deals with loss of citizenship by an alleged fraud. It seems only proper for us to assume that a great many of our new Canadians who came in here after the 1945 conflict, in order to get here must have on occasion made a certain amount of so-called innocent misrepresentations. I would suggest to the government that in a subsequent amendment to part III we should, after a period of time and proof of good citizenship, condone misrepresentation of allegations which had been made, particularly so if the citizen gaining entry was from a country which had been at war with us or was coming from the Orient where the standard of entry is so rigid. Many citizens of the Orient who are relatives of Canadians are perhaps inclined to be a little bit careless in their statements in order to gain entry. I suggest to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) that some serious thought should be given to an amendment which would condone fraud after the lapse of a period of 10 or 12 years of continued good citizenship in Canada.
Dealing with the other matter, namely loss of citizenship for reasons other than fraud, I think we should consider what has taken place in these commonwealth countries which I mentioned a few minutes ago. In New Zealand there are still three reasons other than fraud by which a naturalized citizen of that country can lose his citizenship. The third one is a minor one, consisting of being convicted of an offense for which the sentence is a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months in another country after citizenship had been taken out. In Australia there 66968-9-47
Canadian Citizenship Act are still five reasons other than fraud whereby citizens of that country other than natural born citizens may lose their right to citizenship.
At the present time Canada has the fairest regulations and law with regard to loss of citizenship for reasons other than fraud. In the United Kingdom, the law is half-way between the new law of Canada of 1958 and the law of the other commonwealth countries.
In England there has been a tendency to be a little bit more relaxed because of the fact that the great percentage of the people in the old country are natural born citizens.
In the United States as in Canada our rapid growth has been not because of natural birth in this country but because of the fact that our doors have been open to the people of the world who otherwise qualify, and they have come here in great numbers.
Much has been said today about traitors. That is a subject in which all of us must at all times take a great interest. Fortunately for us in Canada today, treason is not a common crime or in any case one does not hear about it, and few charges are laid. For the benefit of the record, though, may I say that treason is still a reason for a naturalized Canadian losing his citizenship only if that person refuses to come back to Canada and face a jury of his fellow citizens.
I think that treason is the worst of all crimes. Section 46 of the Criminal Code contains six or seven paragraphs defining offences of treason. However, they can be briefly summarized as follows: attempts on Her Majesty's life; killing Her Majesty; using force or violence in Canada or in a province of Canada for the purpose of overthrowing the federal government or one of our provincial governments, et cetera. Another section follows, namely section 48 of the Criminal Code, which deals with offences of treason with regard to violence for the purpose of the overthrow of the government. This has a three-year limitation having regard to the laying of the information. At the present time, under that act it is possible for a citizen, whether natural born or naturalized or for a person who is not a citizen to escape our law unless he is brought before the court within a period of three years. What I can see happening is this. A naturalized citizen, one who came in here perhaps with the intention of being a spy, one who might be on the payroll of our future enemy, could get citizenship in Canada, commit an act of violence with a view to overthrowing this present government-which I think is the purpose of this legislation-and simply return to the country of his origin; and if a charge is not laid within three years he could escape the

Canadian Citizenship Act verdict of his jurymen. That alone is sufficient reason for keeping the offence of treason on the statute books, even if it is nothing more than an axe over the head of a very, very minor fraction of 1 per cent of the naturalized citizens of this country.
I do not intend to repeat what has been said by many members with regard to the fact that natural born citizens are getting preference over our fellow Canadians who are now naturalized citizens. I think probably it is unfair that such should be the case. I would be very much in favour of making them equal provided they attend trial. It is much easier for a naturalized citizen to become an absconding citizen and to disappear, perhaps behind the iron curtain. A Canadian of natural birth would have a limited opportunity to avail himself of that practice.
I am not opposed to seeing the law being made uniform by necessary amendments to the Criminal Code which would take away the right of citizenship from any Canadian citizen who is found guilty of such a serious crime. I think probably that would be a worthy amendment to the Criminal Code; but I do not think that legislation of that type should creep into an act which is respected and is read from time to time by our new citizens as they enter the country. I think that the Canadian Citizenship Act should be as concise as possible; that it must be understandable to people who are not necessarily entirely familiar with English or French; and that the least amount of amendment made to that legislation will mean that we, as Canadians, will be benefited. The amendment which was passed known as Bill No. C-58 of 1958 went a long way, Mr. Speaker. It was something which in all probability the mover of Bill No. C-2 should have brought in during the last four years or more when he was minister. I congratulate the government of this day in taking the step which it took in such a short period of time after its election in March of 1958.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want again to congratulate the member for Marquette and all those other members of all political faiths who have stood up here today and expressed their own beliefs without any fear of political criticism.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I should like to discuss the matter of this amendment now. In the Journals for 1953-54, on page 649, it says:
The house resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur): That Bill No. 375. an act to amend the Research Council Act, be now read the second time.
And on the proposed motion of Mr. Murphy (Lambton West), seconded by Mr. Nickle, in amendment thereto: That Bill No. 375 be not now read the second time, but that the subject-matter
[Mr. Creaghan.l
thereof be referred to a special select committee representative of all parties of this house-
Mr. Speaker then ruled the said amendment out of order on the grounds that 48 hours' notice must be given of a motion to appoint a special committee. Standing Order No. 41 says:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee-
Therefore I rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate today because I come to this house representing one of those ridings in the city of Toronto which has both natural born Canadians and naturalized Canadians in large numbers, and I think I may be able to say something which may add to the interesting debate which we have had here today.
I, along with other members of this party, notably the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), have been concerned with the welfare of those naturalized Canadians for whom we in this party have such high regard. Our record in this connection is very clear. During the short time that this party has been in office it has proved by its actions and what it has done how it feels toward the so-called, new Canadians, and the naturalized Canadians in our country.
I might mention that one of the first actions which this government took was in regard to the discriminatory 20 years' residence requirement for old age assistance and old age security. We in this party believed that it was discriminatory, and when we came into office we forthwith reduced that requirement from 20 years to 10 years. The member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill), who was a member of the previous Liberal government and responsible for the administration of this act, despite the fact that representations were made to him by members of his party in this House of Commons when this matter was being discussed did not act on those recommendations. Furthermore, in 1958 we saw our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration bring in an amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act which did away with many of those discriminatory features which existed in the act which was introduced by the previous Liberal government. I would on this occasion remind hon. members of the house that when we brought in that amendment last session the members of the opposition, under the leadership of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, opposed that

amendment which did away with so many features which were discriminating against the naturalized Canadians in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not correct.


John William Kucherepa: The hon. member says that is not correct. I would refer him to page 4699 of Hansard of September 5, 1958. where he is recorded as having voted against the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. gentleman has challenged my veracity, it seems to me I have a question of privilege. It is quite true that the members of the Liberal party voted against the second reading of that bill-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill:   

 -	, iAAViMMUH, XJJ.J OVli, VUbCU
against the second reading of the bill because it contained a provision for the establishment of thought police in Canada, but once that provision was taken out we supported the measure.


John William Kucherepa: The hon. member may make all the excuses he wishes, but I am quoting from the record.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On the question of privilege. Again, the hon. member has risen to his feet and he has not raised any question of privilege at all. He has made his speech, and I suggest that you rule on these questions of privilege before he rises to make another speech.


John William Kucherepa: Despite the protest made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate I am sure that if he will refer to Hansard he will see that the matter about which he has spoken was carefully reviewed and explained by the minister before the amendment to which he made reference was dealt with in this house.
The most interesting part of the presentation made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate today was the defensive manner in which he approached this question in the house. He said-if I was able to take down his remarks accurately-that he would undoubtedly be asked why action was not taken during the time in which he was responsible for the administration, and his answer was that some administrative inconvenience was involved. For this reason, it appears that he was willing to give up a great principle, the principle in support of which he rose in this house today; the principle which he has asked all hon. members here to support. Yet the former minister said that the only reason he did nothing about it while he was in office 66968-9-47J
Canadian Citizenship Act was because it would have created some administrative inconvenience. It is certainly a shocking thing, in my opinon, when a member of this house who was formerly a minister in a government responsible for running this country says he refused to accept a principle in which he believed because there were some administrative problems. I say that that is an incriminating admission on the part of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
When the hon. member says that the purpose of this amendment is to give complete equality of status with natural born citizens to citizens other than natural born citizens by removing the remaining discrimination under the present law I say he is merely splitting hairs. He has not shown in his remarks, either today or last session, that he has repented of making the observations which he ^ made some years ago in Victoria, British yolumbia. loday, in the course of his speech in this house, he says he never apologized for saying that because he still believes in the principle of a cradle immigration policy.


An hon. Member:: Don't you?


John William Kucherepa: The hon. member is an expert at interrupting and has already obtained for himself the reputation of being able to try to divert speakers, though with little success, I should say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


John William Kucherepa: I will permit the hon. member to put his question after I have completed my remarks, because I did not interrupt him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite satisfied.


John William Kucherepa: I think we must give consideration to the thinking behind the bill which is proposed today. The hon. member reiterated a moment ago his feeling on this cradle immigration policy, yet at the same time he has introduced a bill which would, in effect, eliminate that policy. I will read the purpose of the amendment again:
-to give complete equality of status with natural born citizens to citizens other than natural born citizens by removing the remaining discrimination in the present law.
Yet the hon. gentleman reiterates that he still believes in this cradle immigration policy. I ask this, Mr. Speaker: where is the spirit of this bill? Is it just so many words? I think this bill has been brought into the house merely to cover up some political mistakes which the hon. gentleman may have made in years gone by.

Canadian Citizenship Act
One of the most interesting observations made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate today was that up to the summer of 1957 he never knew that the problem existed. I would differ with him with regard to this, because I am sure that as a minister of the crown press clippings and the like must have been available in his office. I have one here dated April 15, 1955 which appeared in the Toronto Telegram. The heading of this article is: "Ethnic Groups Angry at Immigration Minister".
Anger, resentment and protest have swelled in political, labour, and religious groups in the wake of Immigration Minister J. W. Pickersgill's statement in Victoria, B.C. that another Canadian baby is better than any immigrant.
New Canadian citizens joined the chorus of protest against these remarks made by Mr. Pickersgill:
"I don't believe any immigrant no matter where he comes from or who he is, is as good as another Canadian baby."
Comments from individuals and groups, ranged from full-flared denunciation to tempered reprimands.
Here are just some of those comments, with the nationality of the person making them attached:
"Everyone here is an immigrant. He's saying the only Canadians are Indians."-Lithuanian
"It was just like walking into a cold shower for us."-Hungarian.
"This statement will do a great deal of harm."- Estonian
"We always did, and we always will feel as good as any other Canadian born person."-Polish
"Immigrants are contributing the very thing he's speaking about-Canadian babies."-Ukrainian
"These words will evoke resentment and disappointment among New Canadians."-German


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: On a point of order.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic has risen on a point of order.


Gabriel Roberge: I have been listening to the hon. member for several minutes, and I do not think he is discussing the principle of this bill at all.


John William Kucherepa: I should like to speak on that point of order-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I could not fail to notice that the hon. member for High Park has, indeed, strayed away from the item under discussion at the present time. We are discussing a bill the scope of which is quite clear, and it would be appreciated if the hon. member would restrain his remarks to the measure under consideration.


John William Kucherepa: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. However, I did wish to speak prior to your ruling and explain that what I was doing, in effect, was answering the remarks which were made earlier today by the hon.


member for Bonavista-Twillingate in which he denied he had ever heard of the problem existing in this country prior to the summer of 1957. I hope he is not suffering from political amnesia because of June 10, 1957.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate admitted to the house today that he had not thought much of the problem which is incorporated in this bill until he spoke to some of his "immigrant friends." I am using his words. The former Liberal member for Spa-dina and the former Liberal member for Coast-Capilano suggested that there might be a good reason for changing the act and bringing in an amendment. As a physician I was very interested to hear him refer to this "psychological equality" between natural born and naturalized Canadians, especially when one remembers the great biological theory he previously announced in the field of immigration. It certainly tends to complicate the picture.
Of course, at the end of his remarks this afternoon he started to refer to small administrative inconveniences which would result from the amendment he has presented if we were to adopt it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I was referring to the amendment which was made last year.


John William Kucherepa: I misunderstood the hon. member. It is not surprising when we consider the interjections, and so on. However, that was my understanding. We will not go into that very fully. There is enough on the record without having to refer to ordinary statements of that kind.
Despite the fact that the hon. member has tried to make a case for his bill I must remind the house again that during the last session we did amend the Canadian Citizenship Act. He must remember that at that time, whether he liked it or not, he did vote against the amendment. It is on the record and he cannot deny it no matter what he says today.
As has been pointed out by previous speakers in the house today, the only thing which still appears to have been left in the air and upon which my hon. friend lays such great emphasis is how this would affect the naturalized Canadian citizen who might go outside this country and then be charged with committing some act of treason or an offence under the Official Secrets Act.
I am not going to go back to the original material which I quoted, namely the reactions of the various ethnic groups of the city of Toronto when they heard of this cradle immigration conception or policy, or whatever you want to call it, which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate advocated. I will go back to the year 1955. My hon. friend who

says he did not know anything about the existence of this problem did have an editorial appear on his behalf in the Victoria Times of Saturday, April 16, 1955. This made it quite clear where he stood on this question.
The Oak Bay audience who heard him will remember that. Choosing his words with obvious care he said that he was an unrepentant believer that the cradle is the best way of increasing the nation's population.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I still am.


John William Kucherepa: I am happy to see that he is at last making the record clear and that this attempt on his part to pull the wool over the eyes of the people is beginning to fail.
We have had excellent speeches in the house this afternoon, especially from members of the legal fraternity, who have made it quite clear that our present act contains several sections which are out of keeping with the spirit-and I use the word "spirit"-which I believe most hon. members feel relative to the way in which we appreciate and are attempting to bring our naturalized Canadians to an equal status with that of other citizens in this country. I thought that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. MacLean) did a remarkable job when he pointed out that sections 4, 18, 19 and 20 were sections which might well be looked into and considered in the light of the principle which I think is universally accepted in this house.
As I see it right now, and from following very closely all afternoon the discussion which has taken place, the bill of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is one of confusion and contradiction, something for which my hon. friend, of course, has become quite notorious in recent times. The generalizations in his bill, I would say, take away more rights than they confer with respect to people for whom he now expresses such great concern.
During the last session the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) spoke in the debate on this question and he said that he would like to see one class of Canadian citizenship. I hope that he can convince the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate of this great conception with which most hon. members agree.
There was also another remarkable speaker from the opposition benches, namely the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). He had some very interesting remarks to make on the matter before the house today. He said such things as this, "Let us be stripped of die-hard political allegiance", whatever that means. I did not hear any further explanation of that sentence. Then he went on to say that he has no quarrel with the minister and is prepared to admit that the present government has been most considerate and most helpful in
Canadian Citizenship Act matters of citizenship. I am certainly happy to hear members of the Liberal party speaking that way. Then he went on to say, "We are most grateful for the amendment brought in at the last session", and yet he was one of those who voted against the amendment. He talks of stripping ourselves of die-hard political allegiance then he goes on to say something about giving the government full marks and full credit for the amendment brought in at the last session. As I said a moment ago, he voted against the amendment.
We have an idea of what we are up against in this debate on this bill. The hon. member for Cartier says on the one hand that a naturalized Canadian should not lose his citizenship, even if he leaves the country and fails to come back, if he is charged before the courts with a treasonable offence, and on the other hand he says that this house should devise some means of stripping a natural born Canadian of his citizenship. To me, that seems paradoxical because no matter how far we go in our thinking about the problem there will always be another problem.
In that regard I might point out that there are many cases where people from countries in Europe who have obtained Canadian citizenship in effect maintain a dual citizenship. Suppose we did strip a man of his citizenship for failing to comply with section 19 (1); he could still have a citizenship, the citizenship of the land in which he was born. A natural born Canadian would not have that privilege if we were to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cartier. I think this is ridiculous.
No matter how far we go with the question there are certain aspects on both sides which cannot be taken, shall we say, to an arithmetical conclusion. Some common sense will always have to be applied. As I said before, the important thing is that we should display the spirit with which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration presented her amendment to the house last year, the spirit with which we have treated our naturalized citizens in the past two parliaments during which I have had the privilege of being a member of the house. It is the spirit that counts because no matter how hard we try to bring in legislation that will cover every nook and cranny no legislation is letter perfect.
I think the legislation we have now is satisfactory and I for one, coming from metropolitan Toronto an area which has many naturalized Canadians, probably a greater number than any other part of the country, have heard nothing in recent months critical in any way of the amendment the government brought in last session. As I said before,

Canadian Citizenship Act I think the hon. member tor Bonavista-Twil-lingate is trying to bring in some kind of a bogey. In fact, I think someone described it earlier as a red herring. All I can say is that I have had many opportunities to meet the people in my area and I have heard nothing of this terrible discrimination against someone who may be disloyal and who refuses to come back to Canada and clear himself of any charges which may be laid against him.
This act was introduced by the Liberal party and I was very happy to hear that it was the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who introduced the legislation in the first place. We must also be cognizant of the fact that for the last three years of the late but not lamented Liberal administration the act was administered by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but I think we have eliminated the inequalities in the act-I think we all agree there were inequalities-in so far as it is practical to do so at the present time. I know that many naturalized Canadians express deep concern that the odd individual is able to get into the country by virtue of faulty screening, but with the human factor involved undoubtedly this will occur from time to time, and I am sure that no reasonable individual would want us at this time in our history, when we are faced with the great menace of communism, to do away with any controls in any way affecting the security of the Canadian people and our country.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to take a fresh look at the act. After all, we only amended one section at the last session of parliament. It was the worst section, but I would say that the debate today has been most useful in that other sections have been brought to light which could probably stand some review. We see cases reported in our daily newspapers about the odd person being denied the opportunity of Canadian citizenship and, according to precedent, reasons are not given. I think this is another reason why on the one hand we should try to be as tolerant as possible in giving people the opportunity to obtain Canadian citizenship while on the other hand we must maintain some kind of control to protect our security and be sure that what we do is in the best interests of the whole country.
As I said before, the act as it now stands on the statute books is probably much more generous than the faulty amendment presented today in the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. In the last 10 or 12 years we have seen over a million newcomers arrive in Canada, and from my experience I want to say that most of them are

turning out to be first-class citizens and equal to those of us who are natural born. On the other hand, undoubtedly there may be the odd one in days to come who may turn out to be one of those to whom reference has been made by previous speakers. For that reason I feel that the act as it stands today, containing section 19 (1), should be left as it is rather than taking the action suggested by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on the basis of the attitude, well, what is wrong if one bad individual should get by?
I think this also involves a matter of principle. We are trying to build a great country. We have fine people who have come here to join those of us who were natural born in building the country and I think it is in the interests not only of naturalized Canadians but of natural born Canadians that we protect and maintain the high standard of Canadian citizenship. As I read the bill, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is merely splitting hairs on a very fine, minute point involving whether we should or should not forget about a certain type of individual who as a result of his actions has been charged with a certain offence and who, if he fails to respond and defend himself as any loyal Canadian should be prepared to do, may be in danger of losing his citizenship.
The true spirit of Canadian citizenship is now manifested in our act, and I have already discussed at some length the fact that there will always be little things which will neither fit this way nor that way in our laws. The best example of that was my reference to dual citizenship. Natural born Canadians do not have the opportunity to obtain dual citizenship while some naturalized Canadians do. No amount of legislation will ever change that fact because there is no way in which a natural born Canadian can obtain dual citizenship. So I say we must work toward the goal about which the Prime Minister has preached for so many years throughout the land, namely equality of opportunity for all our citizens irrespective of whether they are natural born or whether they have come here from other countries to make a home for themselves and their children. I should like to point out the paradox in the thinking of my hon. friend opposite when he says he is in favour of a cradle immigration policy. I say this thinking contravenes the laws of biology such as Mendel's law. When you have natural born Canadian citizens here, like some hon. members present, whose parents came here from other countries, then by my hon. friend's designation the ones who were born here would be first-class Canadian citizens but these children would be sons or daughters of second-class Canadian citizens.

This is not in agreement with the laws of biology.
I would conclude my remarks today by saying that the actions of this government, during the year and a half in which they have been in office, have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt where they stand on this great question of a realistic appreciation of the problems which face our naturalized Canadians. We have faced up to these problems. As I mentioned before, we did the right thing in so far as reducing the discriminatory 20-year requirement for the old age pension was concerned. These people are appreciative of that and aware of that. We did the right thing when we amended this act in 1958 by eliminating the gross errors which were put into it by my hon. friend and his colleagues of the previous Liberal administration. I want to assure my hon. friends in this house that this government, under the able leadership of one of Canada's greatest prime ministers, John Diefenbaker, will do everything possible to make sure that our naturalized Canadian citizens will enjoy equality of opportunity and equality of citizenship that natural born Canadians enjoy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for High Park said he would permit me a question. He has suggested I am opposed to immigration. Would he just look at the immigration figures for Canada during the last year I was minister, and compare them with the figures since?


John William Kucherepa: Although the question is not a proper one, I would be happy to answer it because it was the hon. member himself who stopped immigration into Canada in April of 1957.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; this could hardly be referred to as a question, so I do not consider the hon. member for High Park has to answer it.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the members who have taken part in this debate. Although every one of them spoke in English, I do not object to that. However, at this time I feel that a French voice should be heard on the matter.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak very long, as I am perfectly aware of all the tricks that can be used to prevent a bill from being voted on or passed in the house.


An hon. Member:: So are the Conservatives.


Gabriel Roberge: After the speeches we heard today, it seems to me that all here are agreed on the principle of the bill; and, if my understanding of English is good, all have suggested that they wanted Canadians to enjoy equal
Canadian Citizenship Act treatment, whether they are Canadian born or naturalized citizens. I therefore gather that all agree on the principle of the bill. Hence I fail to understand how my hon. friends opposite who took part in this debate could have come to the conclusion that they would vote against the bill. Their only objection to the bill is that it is not worded as they would have it. Now, the only way to achieve this purpose is to refer the bill to a committee-
(Text):


Jay Waldo Monteith: Move another amendment.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) introduced an amendment under section 41 of the standing orders. While I do not wish to question the ruling given by the previous speaker, there is, it seems to me, another way of dealing with the bill in its textual form, and it is to refer it to the committee of the whole. However, I am very much afraid that, if we were to do that, it would probably be 10.05 o'clock by then, and the house would be adjourned. The bill would drop to the bottom of the list, as happened in the past. Therefore, in order that Bill C-2, introduced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), may be referred to a committee, I think it is my duty to move the following amendment- (Text):
I feel that at this time it is my duty to move an amendment to the motion before the house. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau):
That Bill No. C-2 be not now read a second time, but that the subject-matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
Having looked at standing order 65, I suggest that that committee is the most appropriate one for a study of this matter.
Mr. Pallet!:	On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The amendment refers the bill to a committee of the house which has not yet been set up.


An hon. Member:: It is a standing committee.
Mr. Pallet!: It is a standing committee, but it has not yet been set up, and it is obvious that this motion is out of order. I have not the reference at hand, but in Beauchesne's fourth edition, I think it is, page 278, citation 387, we find this:
On the motion for the second reading of a bill to amend the Canada Grain Act, and a proposed amendment that the subject-matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture

Canadian Citizenship Act and colonization, the Speaker ruled the proposed amendment out of order on the ground that the standing committee on agriculture and colonization had not yet been appointed. On an appeal the ruling was sustained by 108 yeas to 41 nays.


Leon David Crestohl: I should like to say a word on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The house is doing its business in a regular fashion. If the point raised by the hon. gentleman opposite is valid, then I respectfully submit the house could not carry on its business. We should not be sitting right now. I think the motion is in order. Otherwise we are simply going through the motions of sitting in the chamber with our hands tied with respect to certain procedures. There is a standing committee and I respectfully submit that it would be in order for the amendment to be considered and that the amendment should be sent to the standing committee on external affairs.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: On
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. The mover of the amendment has stated quite emphatically that he approved of the principle of the bill but he says that there are certain defects in the bill which could be remedied by sending it to this committee. I have not Beauchesne in front of me but indexed under public bills somewhere in Beauchesne is the fact that on second reading, any member of the house who approves the principle of the bill in question cannot move an amendment to send the bill to a committee of the whole house where its defects could be remedied on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On this matter I should like to read to hon. members a rule which was made last year and which appears on page 82 of the Journals of the House of Commons. This was a ruling which was made by the Speaker and it concerns the particular point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett). The ruling is as follows. I read the third paragraph of the ruling made by the Speaker:
Then the honourable member raised a further question whether the fact that the committee has no members has any effect at that time. I think perhaps I should not deal with the point in advance but I have considered it and I would like to tell the house that my view now, right or wrong, is that these are standing committees and although you may say there is no committee if there are no members the rules of the house do provide for the existence of a standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to which this bill would automatically be referred under standing order 105, and so I do not think there is any difficulty at the present time.
It is my opinion that this ruling applies to the case being discussed at the present time. I therefore consider that the amendment which is being proposed and which is being moved by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) is quite in order.
(Mr. Pallett.)


Mr. Palleil:: Mr. Speaker-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Are you appealing the ruling?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Each member will be listened to with a great deal of deference but it would be appreciated if everybody did not talk at the same time.
Mr. Pallet!: On the point of order-


Alexis Pierre Caron: The point of order is settled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The decision has been made.


John Cameron Pallett: With deference, Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Alexis Pierre Caron: The hon. member cannot discuss a ruling. He can appeal it but he may not discuss it.


John Cameron Pallett: In the ruling I understood Mr. Speaker to say that the matter under discussion was automatically referred to the committee in question. I suggest for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that this particular bill is not one that is automatically referred to a committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, although I have listened with a great deal of interest throughout the whole day. However, I must say that we in this group heartily support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). I will give the reason later. Before proceeding, however, I might say that so far as this group is concerned our record is unsullied with respect to any evidence of racial discrimination.
However, I rise to say that we support the amendment, particularly in view of the division of opinion that exists in the ranks of the Progressive Conservative party with respect to this question. The hon. gentleman who spoke prior to the one who preceded me apparently is not aware of the fact that his party has talked in different ways at different times in different places and has held strong convictions on both sides of this question of immigration. In that connection and in support of that statement I want to read briefly-and I think it is a real gem-from the throne speech debate as reported in Hansard of September 25, 1945, at page 433. I may say this was the opinion of the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) as expressed on that occasion:
However, I would not be in favour of a policy of unrestricted immigration. I believe the test as to whether a man should be admitted to Canada should lie in the answer to this question: can we readily and rapidly assimilate him? If the answer is no, then he should be excluded. Our experiences in the past fifty years should be a good enough guide to us in deciding as to whom we can or cannot readily assimilate. Certainly in that class would come all orientals. I believe we should rigidily close the doors against them.

Then later he goes on to say this:
I think it is only honest to make this submission, and to admit also that these oriental people cannot be assimilated into the broad stream of Canadian life. They cannot be made into thoroughgoing Canadians, and therefore it is better for them, as well as for us, to keep them out of the country.
In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of fair play, in view of the wide division of opinion in the ranks of the government supporters, I think this matter should go before the committee so that there can be a thorough examination of the question. I trust that the members on the government side, in fairness to those members who by conviction are on the other side of this question, will vote for this amendment so that everyone will have an opportunity to review the question in the light of the present circumstances and in the light of the good intentions of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this amendment may I say that I am of the opinion that this matter should not be permitted to be brought before the house in the way of a vote because certainly there are other hon. members who wish to bring their opinions to the attention of the house at this time. Although I would not have any inhibitions about voting on the bill, certainly the situation has changed somewhat now. The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is simply that-and I thoroughly believe this- there is a lack of consistency here. In the original proposition the hon. member who has promoted this issue this evening has not thoroughly investigated the circumstances that exist in the first instance; and in the second instance, if he did so, he is merely creating a little bit more confusion in this house, as he has a habit of doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have before us an amendment moved by the hon. member for Megantic to refer the subject-matter of this bill to a committee. It seems to me that under the rules of relevancy the only subject that should be now discussed is whether it is opportune to refer the subject-matter of this bill to the committee. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would enforce the rules with your usual justice.


Mr. Green:: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), has had at least his fair share of the time of the house today. After all, this is not a one-man parliament. He acts as though the laws of this house began and 66968-9-48
Canadian Citizenship Act finished with him. Now he raises this question of order, which is obviously an attempt to shut off the hon. member who now has the floor. This question of whether this bill should be referred to this particular committee is debatable, and the hon. member is quite within his rights in speaking as he is speaking. What did the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) do? He got up and made a little speech on immigration. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) very carefully refrained from interrupting him. These rules apply to everybody in the house, and my friends across the way, having found themselves stymied several times in the course of this debate today, have now resorted to these tactics of bringing in an amendment to refer the subject-matter of this bill to the standing committee. This is a question which the house can debate, and in the course of the debate as to whether or not that should be done any member of the house has the right to raise arguments such as are now being raised by the hon. member who has the floor. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that his remarks are quite in order and that there should be no interference with his speech.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: There is no doubt
that the question being at present debated in the house is on this particular amendment. But it must be brought to the attention of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) that the remarks of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) are quite relevant to the item under discussion at present. Therefore he has the floor and his remarks are quite in order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad this exchange has taken place, and I will tell you why very briefly. The hon. member who has brought this bill into the house will realize, before I am finished with him, that he would do very well to let me sit down right now. Not only that, but the member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) and the member for Bonavista-Twillingate have made appeals to this house that they are sure the members of this house are in agreement with this bill. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is exactly the action of these two members, when they get together like this, which causes new members such as myself, members who wish to do an honest job in this house on behalf of their fellow Canadians, to become suspicious.
To add a little more weight to that sort of talk, I would like to say that the amendment, which I might say was dug up on quick notice, was raised after a great number of exchanges down in the back corner.

Canadian Citizenship Act I do not think that is in keeping even with what the hon. member who has brought the bill into this house is endeavouring to do. I am happy, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling has allowed a humble backbencher such as myself to bring his views before the house on this matter. If I may make reference to the words of the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Kucherepa), I might say that he spoke in a manner which would lead one to think his words were those of a naturalized Canadian. Although he is a natural born Canadian, I am sure he speaks with the same feeling as those who have received their naturalization in this country would also speak.
With regard to a few other remarks which were made previously today, I might say I have listened with interest during this debate to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Smith), who made some statement to the effect that he believed that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate brought this measure before the house today with all sincerity, and so on. I can only say that reviewing the record of his government when they were in office, one can hardly agree. The hon. member creates confusion on every occasion when he is involved in debate, and in this regard I would agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North. As a matter of fact, I think the members of this house who heard the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a matter of 24 hours ago would agree with me, because he was pulling the same stuff outside of the house.
Now referring to the business that is before us, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate related to this house that he had consulted naturalized Canadians on this matter. He intimated in the first part of his remarks that these people who were consulted were people who had emigrated to Canada, and that reference would have led one to believe that they were fairly recent immigrants, even though, as he admitted, they did not agree with him. But as soon as he spoke to them they readily agreed with him, and of course one can understand that, because that is the way things work in their party.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who introduced this bill today indicated to the house that the provisions which would be affected by the enactment of this legislation would not cause a great deal of concern; that is to say, it would happen once in a long period of time. Indeed, that was mentioned by quite a number of the hon. members who rose to speak today. But let us consider what might happen. The hon. member for High Park made reference to a matter which I might

bring again to the attention of the house because of its seriousness, and that is as to what might happen if we eliminate this particular section from the act. When one realizes that it does happen occasionally, and when we know the serious results of such actions in other countries which have happened in the not too distant past, I am sure that it requires a little more study and thought than the member for Bonavista-Twillingate has given to that particular matter. So far as I am concerned, I think the principle that is involved here is this. I have mentioned to this house before that quite a number of us are not too far removed from being in the category of naturalized Canadians, and I am certainly one of those people. Indeed, I became a Canadian because of my leaving two different countries in order to come to Canada, and I am quite sure the same circumstances exist today. I am quite sure that things have not changed much since then. Canadian citizenship is cherished as much today as it was then; it is a very important and basic thing with us that all the people who seek Canadian citizenship treasure it and serve it well.
The hon. gentleman who introduced this bill has certainly made the issue a very confusing one. First of all, he denies he made certain statements. Then when the statements are read, he applauds them and says: "Isn't it true?" He says he feels he has been responsible for a vast amount of immigration into this country. He thinks he can make himself clear on each and every point. But it is not too clear at all when you listen to everything he has to say.


An hon. Member:: It never is.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I agree. It certainly is a
peculiar thing to me. I do not pretend to be a legal light such as he is, or such as he pretends to be-I am not sure which of the two he is-though I may say I do congratulate the hon. member on his newly-found academic qualifications. At the same time I should like to point out that this bill is academic too; it is academic in the principle involved and in its application into the bargain.
I have made statements that I realize I will have to back up in one way or another. I should like to refer hon. members to Hansard. The hon. member himself made reference to this, and he admitted saying it, but he did not go far enough. I think for the benefit of the record we should have this clear, because this is one of the ways in which the hon. gentleman confuses the house eternally. First of all, when the minister introduced her bill to the house last session,

having given it full and thorough consideration and having taken all the facts into consideration, she said as reported on page 3930:
The primary purpose of this bill is to remove certain discriminations which now exist against other than natural born Canadian citizens in relation to loss of Canadian citizenship and, in addition, to make it clear that a person who does not take the oath of allegiance in good faith at the time of acquiring Canadian citizenship is liable to have his Canadian citizenship revoked.
Now let us see what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said in relation to that particular bill on second reading as reported on page 4691 of Hansard for September 5, 1958:
-once we have a naturalized person he should have all the rights of a natural born person-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That, I may say, is a principle about which I know there are a good many administrative inconveniences.
And, later on, the hon. gentleman says this:
It seems to me that the number of persons who come under the new section 19 is so small that we might just as well take the bad with the good.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I think the hon. member who claims to have an answer to all our citizenship problems, and an answer to all our population difficulties-how he does it, whether by means which are morally good, bad or indifferent, does not seem to matter to him-should either repent for what he has done in the past or take another look at what he is endeavouring to do.
But that is not the only evidence. I am not against some similar type of legislation- not for one moment-but I am endeavouring to prove to the house this evening that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is certainly an expert, as he tries to keep telling the nation. He is certainly an expert in creating confusion. I would ask hon.
Business of the House
members to bear in mind that I am not a lawyer and do not profess to be one, but this bill, if it were passed, would mean absolutely nothing. The whole principle would mean absolutely nothing so long as the War Measures Act remains in effect. While that act is on the statute books it would be null and void. And why? Because an order in council instituted by the hon. gentleman's own government on November 26, 1942 says this:
Any person who is a British subject by reason of marriage, or by reason of birth or naturalization in Canada, or by reason of the birth or naturalization of his father in Canada, and who makes application for repatriation to any country which at the time of application is at war with Canada, shall, as from the date of his departure from Canada for repatriation, cease to be a British subject.
Not only that individual but all the members of his family would immediately cease to be Canadian citizens even if they had been born in Canada. To give this double meaning and to ruin further the meaning of the bill which the hon. member is endeavouring to have read a second time, I should like to read another excerpt from an order in council dated December 15, 1945, and I quote:
Any person who being a British subject by naturalization under the Naturalization Act, Chapter 138, R.S.C. 1927 is deported from Canada under the provisions of order in council P.C. 7355 of 15th December, 1945, shall, as and from the date upon which he leaves Canada in the course of such deportation, cease to be either a British subject or a Canadian national.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the leader of the house if it is still his intention to go ahead as he indicated last night.


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
66968-9-48J
[Stage Direction]
Questions