Mr. BARKER.
You mean, I. suppose, a British subject having domicile?
Mr. OLIVER.
Any person who has acquired Canadian domicile by residing in Canada for three years would have the right to come back if he once went away.
Mr. JAMESON.
What is a Canadian citizen as distinguished from a British subject?
Mr. OLIVER.
We want a definition that will show' the distinction between a Canadian and a British subject who is not a Canadian, and we use the words 'Canadian citizen' for that purpose.
Mr. JAMESON.
Then British subjects are not permitted to land in Canada as a matter of right?
Mr. OLIVER.
No, not because he is a British subject. He has to be either a Canadian citizen or he must have Canadian domicile before he can land in Can-, ada as a matter of _ right.
On section 23, jurisdiction of courts in cases of rejection and deportation re-I stricted.
[DOT] ! -
Mr. OLIVER.
This is a new provision. It has been considered by the Justice Department so far as its form is concerned, but the policy of the section is a matter for the consideration of parliament. The Justice Department says that we have a legal right to pass such a section.
On section 25, passengers to be landed only at places designated by officer in charge-penalty for infraction,
Mr. BARKER.
Who imposes that fine?
Mr. OLIVER.
There is a provision in the latter part of the Bill.
Mr. JAMESON.
Why is the very great latitude between the fine of $20 and $1,000 allowed?
Mr. OLIVER.
It would depend on whether the Act was done with intent or with malice aforethought. There are possibilities in the case of steamers deliberately allowing prohibited passengers to get off at points where they would avoid detection and exclusion by our officers, and it is very necessary that there should be the power of a very drastic procedure in such cases. There are people who are prohibited from coming into Canada except on payment of a very high fee, and there is a great deal of money involved in the landing of such people free of charge. It is, therefore necessary that the punishment should be severe. If two Chinamen were landed outside the regular port of entry the saving would amount to this fine.
Mr. JAMESON.
I am not objecting to the maximum, but I think the minimum is too low. It might be that it would be to the advantage of some transportation companies to be a little lax in their supervision of the landing of passengers because the passage money might exceed the amount of the possible penalty. My own observation in cases of this sort has been that as a rule the minimum and not the maximum penalty is applied. I do not know how the minister intends to have these new sections carried out. I suppose it will largely depend upon the instructions as to what the fines exacted shall be, but in my own experience I have found that the minimum fine is usually collected, and I think that $20 is too small.
Mr. LENNOX.
This is intended to be the penalty with respect to each individual that shall be landed?
Mr. OLIVER.
Yes.
Mr. LENNOX.
It should be applied to each individual who is landed.
Mr. OLIVER.
Yes, I would think it would be in each individual case, but this is not absolutely clear.
Mr. OLIVER.
Mr. LENNOX.
I would move that after the word 'dollars' in line 32 the words 'in respect of each such passenger or person' be inserted, and that the words 'in each case' in line 31 be struck out.
Section as amended agreed to.
Mr. SPROULE.
As we have made considerable Drogress, would it not be proper to rise and report progress and then let us adjourn?
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. SPROULE.
What will we take up to-morrow?