Mr. ARTHURS:

Confirming what my

hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard has said, in the part of Ontario from which I come, for many years-for political reasons or otherwise, which I am not going into now-foreigners were brought before a magistrate and sworn on the ordinary oath of allegiance to His or Her Majesty, as the case might be, although usually it was Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and then many of them, before they were naturalized were appointed justices of the peace, and some of them occupy that position to-day. They have no adequate knowledge perhaps of English, and no knowledge whatever of French. I support very strongly the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that in all these cases we should take the opinion of the judges of the court. There is no complaint regarding the working of the present act from anybody in the large cities. The city of Montreal is satisfied. The city of Toronto, where we have a large foreign population, is satisfied, and so on throughout the country.

The complaint is made that some of the applicants for naturalization are located a long way from the court, and have to travel many miles to reach a judge, but surely some slight amendment could be made to the act for the purpose of covering such a case. I maintain that in the main the present law is quite satisfactory, and certainly the present method is more advisable than placing the matter in the hands of a justice of the peace and two other mien, who may be his sons or any other two people so long as they are bom in Canada.

Mr. CHURCH:

Apparently the government has decided that this naturalization question is going to stay in politics as long as they are in office. We have an amendment

Naturalization Act

before the chair, and in regard to that let me say that in the province of Ontario the office of the justice of the peace has practically been abolished. Every city and town, under the Attorney General's department, today has a police magistrate who is paid a salary. The justices of the peace now have no duties to perform. The cost of administering this act will run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. As I said the other night, this is just a political bill, and it was never intended to be anything else but a political bill to make votes for the government when polling day comes round. Especially in the larger city ridings, like Toronto West Centre or Toronto East Centre, where there is a large fluctuating foreign population, the present law has worked admirably. In the city from which I come, we have six county court judges, and every time the court meets there is a procession of these men appearing to secure naturalization. We must remember that under this law we are not merely granting Canadian citizenship when we issue a certificate of naturalization, but that since 1914 and the agreement that was entered into at the imperial conference of that time, followed by legislation throughout the different dominions, we have been really granting British citizenship throughout the whole empire, and once a British subject always a British subject. You can become a British subject in one of two ways, either by birth or by naturalization.

Coming from a city where we have a large foreign population who on the whole are law-abiding, where the present law has worked very well, I protest against the amendment which the Secretary of State proposes, and so far as the latest amendment is concerned, handing over the inquiry to two native born citizens and a justice of the peace who need not be bom in the country at all, that just makes the bill just so much worse than it was before-a political farce. Wherever this committee of three is working, you would find a political machine trying to coin out certificates of naturalization for people who are expected to vote for the government.

I wish to protest against the principle of this bill. The other night the government brought down a bill to repeal a provision in the criminal code regarding sedition. The Naturalization Act is now being attacked, and dear knows what the next attack of the government will be for the benefit of foreigners. This is just a nice gesture to the prairie foreign voters in the next election;

that is all it is. Whatever you may say about this bill, the fact remains that it is looked upon by the people of this country as a political bill. Chief Justice Meredith, one of the greatest judges the country produced, has written to the Secretary of State of this country wanting information and a ruling or advice of what citizenship is under the present law. If there was more co-operation between the government and the judges the act would be all right.

Mr. BALDWIN:

The hon. gentleman has

mentioned politics. Does he believe that to

the victors belong the spoils?

Mr. McGIBBON:

That is the practice

over there.

Mr. CHURCH:

Chief Justice Meredith

has very properly written to the government in the interests of a proper naturalization act, asking if they will define the division of the present law between the judges and the government. We had county court judges before the committee on judges' salaries the other day, and they say that the most important part of their judicial duties is looking after this question of citizenship. Are we to wait until Canada becomes like the United States? When President Harding found, by the last census in the United States, that only 54 per cent of the population were American citizens, his administration brought down a bill closing the door to continental Europe and establishing the quota system, in the interest of the best United States citizenship. That question was taken up by both the parties, Republican and Democratic, both of which strongly opposed the European invasion of that country.

I may say to my hon. friends opposite that if this amendment is passed they will have the spoil system and might just as well abolish the Civil Service Commission. This is simply a political bill. Let us take naturalization out of politics. Our Naturalization Act has worked admirably, and the only trouble has been a lack of co-operation between the Secretary of State and the country court judges. I am opposed to the amendment. Who is asking for it? Have any municipalities asked for it? The Naturalization Act is working efficiently in the county of York. The Naturalization Act is one of the most important statutes, and the government had no mandate to amend it. If at the last election the government had told the people of Ontario that it proposed to pass an amendment along these lines, it would

Naturalization Act

not have secured a single seat throughout the province. Ontario will have to pay the costs of administration under this amendment. A return I secured the other day showed that Ontario was paying 42 per cent of all the cash taxes in the Dominion. It is Ontario that will pay the bulk of the huge cost of such an act as this.

We shall soon have to pass a quota law similar to that in operation across the line. The British born now are getting down to 55 or 50 per cent of the population. In Australia Premier Bruce has tightened up the immigration regulations. He has decided that Australia must be a white man's country. They are getting a majority of the British immigrants. They are doing all the windowdressing in London in immigration. What they have done should be an example to Canada. I submit that this amendment is against the best interests of the British Empire, and it is pretty near time that members from Ontario rose up and protested against this measure. Once more I raise my voice in protest against this bill because it means there will be more politics than ever in the naturalization of immigrants. It is time the British born made a stand against all these acts to benefit the foreign element very largely. The United States have adopted a quota law. The United States was fast approaching the condition of London, England, in 1666, the time of the great fire, which was described, I believe, by the author and poet, Ben Jonson, as follows:

The common sewer of Paris and of Rome

Sucks in the dregs of all corrupted states.

And the American people checked a foreign invasion. We should do likewise and adopt a quota law before it is too late.

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

Mr. Chairman,

I think it must be admitted on all hands that we are dealing with something very vital to the life of Canada when we seek to amend the law relating to citizenship, particularly when we remember that admission to Canadian citizenship also carries with it British citizenship under the law that has been referred to during the course of this debate.

I am sure the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the administration of the Naturalization Act, desires to have accurate and reliable information regarding every applicant for a certificate of naturalization. This being so, I wish to ask him how he can get such information better than through the judges of this country-men who are accustomed to weigh the value of testimony, men who know local conditions, men who have the applicant before them and thus have the

benefit of a personal interview. Surely these judges can be relied upon to obtain that accurate and dependable information without which the Secretary of State should not act. I have not heard it alleged that in the past they have failed in the discharge of their duty, or that they have in any way neglected to report this information in proper form to the Secretary of State.

Our citizenship is of great importance to this country. In the old days a Roman used to boast of his citizenship. I feel that we may as proudly boast of our citizenship. It is, I submit, worth while to impress upon the applicant for the rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship his duties and his responsibilities to Canada and to the empire. Surely those duties and those responsibilities will not be impressed upon him by the methods proposed by this bill.

There can be no doubt that at certain times and in certain places there will be those who will endeavour to use this legislation for political purposes, and it will require very strong resistance on the part of any secretary of state to prevent this. Then why does he place himself in a position where he will have to resist the pressure of friends, where he will have to resist applications made, perhaps on the eve of an election, in a wholesale way for the naturalization of persons by those who desire their votes. Scandals have occured in the past and very likely will occur in the future under legislation of this kind; but under the present statute I submit there is no possibility of anything of the kind happening, and we should use every endeavour to avoid the possibility of its recurring. In the past we have heard a great deal, and perhaps properly so, about irregularities in connection with the issue ofimmigration permits. Surely this amendment affords an opportunity for a greater abuseof the law on the eve of an election. The

title of a bill should, I submit, bear some reference to its purposes and to its meaning, and it seems to me this bill might very properly be entitled an act to permit the peddling of naturalization certificates for political purposes. I notice that the press of the country is very strong indeed in its expressions of opinion against the bill. Coming in on the train this evening I cut out an extract from a local paper reporting the views of the Brantford Expositor, a paper not unfriendly to this administration. This is what the Brantford Expositor says:

Parliament will do well to scrutinize the proposed measure in the most painstaking manner, having regard only for the welfare of Canadian citizenship. Unless it can be proved

Naturalization Act

beyond a doubt that there are injustices which ought to be remedied, the proposed amendment ought to be rejected. Canadian citizenship carries with it a priceless heritage, and it ought not to be granted without full judicial inquiry having been made in regard to the merits of the applicants.

If I took much time I could not more effectively express my opinion and, I venture to say, the opinion of the majority of the people in this country on this question than it has been expressed in this very short article.

I have some knowledge of how this act has worked. I have seen applicants for citizenship appear before the county judge; they have been treated kindly, courteously and with every consideration, and advantage has been taken of the opportunity to inform them of their rights, their privileges and also of their duties. That, I think we must agree, is very important and useful if we are to have that appreciation on the part of our newly naturalized citizens of their rights and of their obligations to Canada. It does not appear that there has been any great measure of inconvenience under the act as it has operated. I can well understand that in some outlying, sparsely settled districts some people possibly have been put to inconvenience. But I would point out that if an applicant is unable to attend court all he has to do is to make a statutory declaration. Under the franchise law, where personal attendance is required, there are provisions that make it possible, in case the applicant for franchise is unable to attend, either through sickness or from any other good cause, for proof to be given on his behalf. It may be furnished by affidavit. But in this case, as far as I understand the legislation, no person is required to swear anything; no evidence is taken on oath. We have one or two certificates given by some interested friends, perhaps some political partisan, and these are sent to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State admits that there should be some investigation, but what opportunity will he have of exercising supervision o

for it and pressing for it. Is there any injustice? Is there any real inconvenience? Is there any danger to the citizenship of Canada? Shall we not be keeping matters on a higher level if we follow the course pursued in the past, asking the applicants to appear before our courts to vindicate their application and to furnish that measure of proof which is only reasonable and proper, having in view the safeguards essential to the welfare of this country?

Mr. McGIBBON:

This is one bill that

parliament should certainly refuse to let go by. It is nothing more than another attempt by this government to put through legislation for the purpose of keeping itself in office. It is nothing more and nothing less. It has not been asked for by the country; it is not wanted by the country; it is not wanted by this parliament. In fact, it is wanted by no one ibut the government and members on the other side of the house. If any proof were needed in this regard it was furnished the other night by a minister of the crown, the Minister of Agriculture, who rose in this house and, in that jocular manner which he so often assumes, said, "There are thousands and tens of thousands of foreigners in the west and we want to get them naturalized." I looked at the government at the time and I saw, representing the province of Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). Immediately there came to my mind a map presented the other day to a committee of this house-a map of the province of Saskatchewan. That map I have here in my hand, showing the foreign element marked in black. I suppose other hon. members have received it.

Mr. McPHEE:

Did my hon. friend read the list of foreign settlements given in the map?

Mr. McGIBBON:

The hon. member read them himself the other day in the committee room and he, like many others in this house who are also on that committee, prevented or tried to prevent this information from getting out.

What information?

Mr. McGIBBON:

The information I am giving to the house.

Mr. DUNNING:

Will the hon. member let me see the map? I have not had the privilege of looking at one.

Mr. McGIBBON:

Certainly; have a look at it. You will see your own constituency.

Naturalization Act

Mr. DUNNING:

Will my hon. friend

describe my constituency as being entirely of foreign birth?

Mr. McGIBBON:

I think the minister has a few of them out there.

Mr. DUNNING:

And they are good

Canadian citizens too.

Mr. McGIBBON:

They may be good

Canadian citizens, but their judgment is bad when they vote for the Minister of Railways.

Mr. DUNNING:

That is a matter of

opinion. You tried hard enough to get them and failed.

Mr. McGIBBON:

I got mine in my

constituency. Now, Mr. Chairman, looking over that map we can readily see why this government wants this bill to go through. The Minister of Agriculture is quite frank albout it. He says, "We have thousands and tens of thousands out there and we want to naturalize them." The Prime Minister this evening made the statement that they were all being made equal under the law. That, I submit, is not at all what we are doing. The fact is, they are not under the law; they are under the government. The Secretary of State will have the final say in all these applications.

Mr. DUNNING:

Is my hon. friend relying on this map?