Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):
No; over two hundred.
Mr. GILLIS:
I am not going to argue with hon. members, but I remember distinctly getting reinforcements in October, 1916, which consisted of about 175 Japanese from British Columbia. '
Mr. GIBSON:
Japan was our ally then.
Mr. GILLIS:
That is all right. Thousands of Japanese who are in Canada to-day came here at or about that, time, and they have been living here ever since, making their contribution. As I said before, when you start to interfere with the liberties of one section of the people of Canada the time is coming when it will apply to every section. It is really a matter of setting a precedent. My stand -is that if we permit a man to enter this country, give him the right to work and accept him as a citizen, we are under an obligation to go all the way with him. If we keep these people segregated in their own groups, refuse them the right of citizenship and so on, how can we expect to make citizens of them? If we are not going to make citizens of them certainly we should not have them in the country. Either they should be here on the basis of full citizenship or they should not be here at all.
I have no doubt it was in the rush of business that this thing got through the house. I should like to see section 5 deleted completely, but I know that cannot be done at this point. The only thing we can do is attempt to correct the senate amendment in the best way possible to meet the situation. In that connection I am going to move a subamendment, seconded by Mr. Knowles:
That all the words of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State after the word "that" be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
"the motion for concurrence in the senate amendment to clause 5 be amended as follows: That the word 'the' after the word 'at' in the proposed amendment be struck out and the word 'a' Substituted therefor, -and that all the words after the word 'time' be struck out and the following words substituted therefore: 'subsequent to the next general election'."
I have no intention of going into a long debate in the matter. I merely wish to make it clear that, we are opposed to racial discrimination in any way, shape or form as applied to any section of Canada where minority groups are accepted as citizens. This subamendment merely means that section 5 of the present bill would remain inoperative in the next general election. The matter would remain as
it is, or as it was prior to the passing of this Section of the bill. By the time this house convenes again there may be a new parliament. But if it is not a new parliament, the members of the house have the right and privilege of going into the elections act and tightening the act as they may wish, or changing it completely. What I wish to make clear is that we are not satisfied with it, and we want to try to undo any harm that was done in the rush of putting this bill through the house.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:
On a point of order, from what my hon. friend has said at the very conclusion of his remarks it would seem that his amendment is intended to leave matters as they were prior to the carrying of section 5. That, as I understand it, is the intention of my hon. friend's amendment. If that is so, its effect is the same thing as that of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State. Therefore, being to all intents and purposes the same amendment in its effect, it could not be considered by the house.
In what I am saying I have referred to what I understood the hon. member to have said about his amendment. I am not referring to anything he may have had to say with regard to the general question of the right of all persons to vote. That is another matter.
Mr. SPEAKER:
I shall read the subamendment-. It is as follows:
That all the words of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State after the word "that" be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
"the motion for concurrence in the senate amendment to clause 5 be amended as follows: That the word 'the' after the word 'at' in the proposed amendment be struck out and the word 'a' substituted therefor, and that all the words after the word 'time' be struck out and the following words substituted therefor: 'subsequent to the next general election'."
This would mean that the following words be added: "At a time subsequent to the next general election". That is the effect of the subamendment.
Mr. STIRLING:
Mr. Speaker, would you read section 5 as amended?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:
Yes, let us have that.
Mr. SPEAKER:
Section 5, as proposed, would be as follows:
Every person residing in Canada whose racial origin is that of a country at war with Canada, if such person, -at the time of the passing of this act, namely July I, 1938, and on the date of the declaration of such war, resided in a province in which on those dates a person of his racial origin was disqualified from voting at an election of a member of the legislative assembly of
Dominion Elections
that province, and who did not serve in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the war of 1914-18 or in any subsequent war in which Canada may be engaged.
Mr. HOMUTH:
That extends the
franchise.
Mr. NEILL:
Mr. Speaker, would you read the amendment again?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:
Yes, let us have it again.
Mr. SPEAKER:
The amendment by the hon. member for Cape Breton South is:
That all the words of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State after the word "that" be deleted-
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):
From what?-from the amendment?
Mr. SPEAKER:
I would suppose that would mean from the section of the bill. It states:
That all the words of the amendment moved by the Secretary of State after the word "that" be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:
"The motion for concurrence in the senate amendment to clause 5 be amended as follows: That the word 'the' after the word 'at' in the proposed amendment be struck out and the word 'a' substituted therefor, and that all the words after the word 'time' be struck out and the following words substituted therefor: 'subsequent to the next general election'."
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):
The intention of that amendment is therefore obvious. The disqualification does not refer to a disqualification previously existing from July 1, 1938, or at the outbreak of war. The disqualification would refer to a time after the holding of the next election.
Mr. KNOWLES:
That is right.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):
That is destructive, completely, of the principle now before the house.
Mr. KNOWLES:
That is right.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):
I am glad to have that admission. This is a direct negative, and therefore I submit it is not in order.