Mr. RINFRET:

This bill has been before

the committee on several occasions and has caused considerable discussion. It has also received the attention of the public and the

Mr. BENNETT:

That has always been

Mr. DUNNING:

Not under the present,

law.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes.

Mr. RINFRET:

My hon. friend's interruption shows that I was right in saying that I should again direct the attention of the committee to the main principle of the act, which principle the leader of the opposition has lost sight of. Under the present system the Secretary of State, representing the government of Canada, can pass on naturalization papers only where the judiciary have pronounced favourably on the application, and the purpose of the bill is to bring the applicants directly before the Secretary of State and to vest in him full discretion under certain regulations to grant naturalization certificates.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am sure my hon. friend does not desire to make any misstatement of facts.

Mr. RINFRET:

No.

Mr. BENNETT:

Section 4 of the act, which is the principal section determining the conditions under which naturalization shall be granted, contains subsection 3, which is the present law, but which the Minister of Railways was so persistent a moment ago in saying that it was not so. Subsection 3 reads:

Naturalization Act

The grant of a certificate of naturalization to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the minister and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision.

That section is a standard section throughout the empire. It was drafted by British draftsmen; it is the law of Canada to-day and it will continue to be unless my hon. friend takes it out of the statute. This subsection is not touched by this amendment.

Mr. RINFRET:

If my hon. friend will

refer to my first statement in the house, he will see that I have been contending right along that this section was the underlying principle of our act.

Mr. BENNETT:

Of all acts.

Mr. RINFRET:

I was basing my appeal

to the house on that subsection. I am glad to see my hon. friend admits at last that the subsection is the underlying principle of our act, because that is what I have been contending all the time. What I have endeavoured to demonstrate to the committee and the country is that the sections that we desire to repeal are inconsistent with that very subsection which I have read and which my hon. friend has just read. If my hon. friend will refer to my speech of last Monday, he will find that my first argument was that the principle of the legislation was included in the subsection which he has just read and that sections 22 to 27 inclusive which we wish to repeal are inconsistent with that subsection. In the other British dominions the Secretary of State has, in conformity with what has just been read, and under certain regulations, absolute discretion in regard to granting certificates. When the applications come to him he has absolute discretion to dispose of them one way or the other, provided that the regulations have been followed.

Mr. BENNETT:

So he has in Canada.

Mr. RINFRET:

In this country, becaus'e of the existence of the sections which we now propose to repeal, the Secretary of State can exercise that discretion only when the courts have reported favourably.

Mr. BENNETT:

No. It does not say so. It says the opposite.

Mr. RINFRET:

Then there will be no reason for objecting to my bill.

Mr. MANION:

The objection to the bill was largely because the minister was taking away the discretion altogether from the courts and vesting it in the Secretary of State.

Mr. RINFRET:

The leader of the opposition seems to contend that this is the law now.