Mr. MARTIN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I regret having to do this, because the hon. gentleman is making a helpful and constructive speech, but if I do not take this attitude now I shall be accused, when other members proceed to discuss particular sections, of not having objected to the course now being pursued by the hon. gentleman. I am following the hon. gentleman's speech with close interest, but he is now discussing particular sections and that is certainly contrary to the rules of the house. We are now debating the principle of the bill. There will be ample opportunity when we are in committee for the hon. gentleman to make what I know are suggestions which he has carefully considered and which may help the house materially in considering the provisions of the bill as they now stand.

Mr. COLDWELL:

May I say a word on the point of order? It is true that the hon. gentleman, in discussing the principle' of the bill, has referred to certain sections. In all probability that is questionable under our rules; nevertheless I feel that in making these references he is really dealing with the principle underlying the bill itself; hence, in the circumstances the references should be excused. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman can do exactly what he is doing by simply refraining from mentioning the particular section he is discussing, and saying that the bill provides so-and-so.

Mr. JAENICKE:

I am sorry if I have offended against the rules, and I shall govern myself accordingly.

Mr. GREEN:

On the point of order, as I said the other day, it will be impossible for us to debate this bill in a proper way on second reading if we are not allowed to refer to some of the sections. The minister himself did that throughout his speech the other day. He told us what one part meant and what another part meant. This is a complicated and important bill. Last jmar it was the intention to send it to a committee of the house where it could be carefully studied. That course is not to be followed this year. I suggest to the minister that it would be to his own interests, and certainly in the best interests of the house, if in our speeches we were allowed to say what we thought was wrong with some of these sections or indicate ways in which they could be improved.

Canadian Citizenship

If that is done, then there will be an opportunity to give consideration to the suggestions before the bill is passed through the committee stages. It will then be too late to make the necessary amendments.

Mr. MacINNIS:

Before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read from the report of the speech of the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) which he made on the evening of April 2, to show that he was guilty of the very offence that he now charges against the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Jaenicke). At page 508 of Hansard he is reported as having said:

I come now to part IV of the bill which deals with the rights and obligations of naturalized Canadian citizens, and represents no change from the present situation. Sections 26 and 28 are complementary and provide for the continuation of the common status of British subjects that has always prevailed through the commonwealth.

The minister's whole speech is along the same line, and that is nothing more or less than what the hon. member for Kindersley is now doing.

Mr. BRACKEN:

Before you give your ruling, sir, may I add just one word? With the principle of what the minister has said I personally am in entire agreement, but I am not in agreement with its strict application in this instance. What is the principle of this bill? If there is just one principle I think every hon. member in 'this parliament is in favour of it; and if we follow that logic through to its conclusion there is no purpose at all in this debate. With all deference I suggest to Your Honour that the hon. member who has the floor should not be held too strictly to the rules which have been mentioned.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that some hon. gentlemen have suggested that, since this bill is very important, it should be discussed clause by clause. Hon. members will understand that even if the bill is an important one, we have standing orders in this house which must be followed. As my hon. friend knows, in Beauchesne's third edition at page 228 it is stated that on' the motion for second reading it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill. I understand that the hon. member who has the floor may refer to the various clauses, but I do not think he has the right on the motion for second reading to . discuss the bill clause by clause. He should not forget that after second reading is given the house will- go into committee of the whole, when he and all other hon. members will have the right to discuss every clause in the bill.

Mr. JAENICKE :

I shall try not to offend against the rules. However, I think I can say that I disagree with the portion of the bill which proposes to take away the certificate of naturalization of a citizen who is guilty of communicating with the enemy, as stated in the bill, or of committing similar acts; in other words, who is a traitor. Why should not a natural-born Canadian lose his citizenship for the same reason, I should like to know? That is one point I wish to raise. In addition, we have adequate provisions in the criminal code for dealing with traitors. I am in favour of the inclusion of this or a similar section in the bill, but I maintain that it should cover all Canadian citizens, whether naturalized or native-born.

The same remark would apply to another section which deals with disloyalty and disaffection toward His Majesty. I would make the same argument in that respect. Then a naturalized citizen is liable to loss of his Canadian citizenship if within a period of five years after he becomes a citizen he is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment 'for more than one year. As I said before, I object to that because I think we are now providing for good citizens by making the qualifications higher, and we should take them for better or for worse. In addition I maintain that this will not make for the good administration of justice. A prisoner, a naturalized Canadian citizen, is before the court accused of a crime, and is found guilty. He has been naturalized for less than five years. The facts relating to this man's personal circumstances, his family and so on, are brought before the judge, who because of .this provision might be inclined to give him a lesser penalty than otherwise he would receive. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this section is good for the administration of justice in this country.

I should like to make just one other point, and it is this. The act provides that if a certificate is issued the naturalized Canadian shall be entitled to all the rights, powers and privileges and subject to the same obligations and responsibilities as a native-born Canadian. It is singular that the word "political" has been-left out. If you look at the old act prior to 1911 you will find that the certificate of a naturalized Canadian provided that he was entitled to all the political and other rights, powers and privileges. The act at present in force also provides that a naturalized citizen is entitled to all the political and other rights, powers and privileges. If you look at the British act you find that naturalization confers all the political and other rights, powers and

Canadian Citizenship

privileges, and it is rather ominous to me to see that the word "political" has been left out here. Remembering the days of 1917 I urge that we restore the word "political" and leave the. law in that respect as it is now.

Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the discussion on this bill respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and the status of aliens I should like first of all to congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) on the masterful address he delivered on this subject last Tuesday. I should like also to commend the Minister for bringing this important measure before the house. May I also express a word of appreciation to the under secretary of state, the chief of the naturalization branch, and the other officials who assisted in the preparation of the proposed legislation.

Before proceeding with a discussion of the bill may I say in behalf of the Social Credit members in this house that we are in favour of the bill and intend to support it. In spite of the fact that in our opinion, two or three sections of the bill could be improved, Social Credit members consider the bill to be good. Moreover, they feel that this bill is long overdue, and therefore we welcome its introduction at this time.

Speaking now for myself, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity not only to comment on the principle of the bill but also to express my views on several other aspects of the proposed measure. r TSfs its long title indicates bill No. 7 covers a wide field. It has, as the minister pointed out, two main objectives: first, to achieve a clear and simple definition of Canadian citizenship by removing the complexities which are found in the old legislation, and, second, to provide a common status or, better still, a common denominator for all our people, the purpose of which is to draw our citizens closer together and thus bring about true unity in Canada.

I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members will agree that those two objectives are highly desirable. When this measure becomes law, Canadian citizens, natural-bom or naturalized, will have the right to call themselves Canadians. This does not mean, however, that until the introduction of this bill, we were not regarded as Canadians. The fact is that we were called Canadians. But for official purposes we had to declare that we were British subjects, and also designate our "nationality" by stating the country in which we were bom. Quite often some of

our citizens had to change from time to time [DOT] what was regarded as their nationality in order to comply with the change in control of the country in which they were born. The status of our citizens therefore was confusing and lacked permanency. The proposed bill aims to correct this.

Another important improvement in the act

is in regard to loss by naturalized Canadians of citizenship through absence from the country for more than one year. It was possible of course to extend this leave by appearing at the British embassy at the end of each year, but such leave could not be extended beyond the limit of five years. To students, for example, -whose funds are usually limited, and who had to travel long distances to the nearest British embassy, the old procedure was a financial burden. Under the new act, a naturalized Canadian will not lose his citizenship unless his absence exceeds at least six years.

A further change in the proposed act has to do with the procedure of acquiring Canadian citizenship. With this change in the procedure to make the ceremony more impressive and instructive, new Canadian citizens will feel a greater consciousness of and pride in becoming citizens of this great country.

Further, provision is made for the first time that an applicant for citizenship who has not an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages may be granted Canadian citizenship, provided that he has resided continuously in Canada for more than twenty years. I might point out that according to the 1941 census ninety-nine per cent of Canadians do speak one or both of the official languages. This particular provision, however, to which I have referred, applies mainly to a small section of population in the northern parts of the three prairie provinces. In this section of our country there settled some of our pioneers. In the early pioneer days there were no schools in these districts, and therefore no facilities for learning the English language. Their first task was to build houses, roads, schools, churches, and community halls, as well as to clear the land for productive purposes. To this section of our population we owe much for their generous contribution to the development of the vast sections of the Canadian west. Virtually with bare hands they cleared the land, and out of the wilderness they made the land blossom with wheat, barley, and rye. Despite their not having acquired an adequate knowledge of the English language, they have earned their place in this country by their industry and devo-

Canadian Citizenship

tion to Canada, and by their sons' sacrifices in world war II. I am personally very happy that at long last the Secretary of State has recognized the contribution made to Canada by these people, and by this act will give them an opportunity to apply for and be granted the status of Canadian citizen.

I should now like to deal with one or two criticisms of the bill. My chief criticism is that the bill carries over from the old legislation the distinction between Canadian-born citizens and naturalized Canadians. The section on revocation makes certain reservations regarding naturalized Canadians. In his speech the minister did point out that certain safeguards are necessary. In my opinion, however, this section should be limited to one clause, namely, the one covering treason and betrayal of the country. All other distinctions, in my opinion, should be removed.

, I maintain that nothing positive can be accomplished by having two sets of laws in Canada, one for Canadian-born citizens and the other for naturalized Canadians. It is my view that when a person is granted Canadians citizenship, he should have not only [DOT] equal responsibilities but also equal privileges. Our laws should be the same for both Canadian-born and naturalized citizens. Should a person be guilty of an offence, he should be brought before our courts of justice and dealt with as an individual. Therefore the revocation section in this bill and our immigration law's do make a distinction and are not applied equally to all our citizens. A naturalized Canadian, even under this bill, will lose his citizenship ifi he stays away for more than six years, but the same does not apply to Canadian-born citizens.

I should like to cite, Mr. Speaker, another instance of this undesirable distinction. May I refer to the defence of Canada regulations and point to the distinction which was drawn in our statute books between Canadian-born citizens and naturalized Canadians. At the beginning of the war the regulations known as the defence of Canada regulations were passed under the War Measures Act. Section 26 of this act as originally framed provided for the registration of enemy aliens. Later section 26(b) was enacted by an order in council which brought under this clause persons who were naturalized after September 1, 1922, who were born in territories which were under the sovereignty, or control of enemy countries on the dates on which Canada declared war on these countries.

Order in council P.C. 6150 of November 2, 1940, contains this paragraph:

That in view of the fact that certain persons who were not required to register under the

original regulations were under the impression that they were not affected by the subsequent regulations due to the fact that they were naturalized, some of them have been guilty of the offence of failing to register.

Such discriminatory measures, Mr. Speaker, are undesirable and harmful. We should not hold a Canadian responsible for the acts or the attitude of the country from which he originally came.

If we are to achieve the objectives which the minister outlined, we must eliminate distrust and suspicion from our midst. Moreover, legislation should not be placed in our statute books which perpetuates distinction and discrimination. We must do our utmost to make our naturalized Canadians feel that they are a part of our nation, if we are to have a truly strong and united country.

The task of building and strengthening our nation is a great one. I should like to quote a passage from a book entitled "Emily Murphy, Crusader", by Byrne Hope Sanders. It would be well for us to listen to what Emily Murphy, a great Canadian woman, had to say on Canadian nationhood:

This task of making real Canadians out of all who live in Canada cannot be accomplished by coercive measures,' nor by approaching these people in a superior, patronizing attitude, but by persuading them that Canada is their friend; -that we are williiig to guide and counsel them in their perplexity relating to laws, language, and customs.

Many of these people come to this dominion with a rich and varied handicraft, with a wealth of literary and artistic knowledge, a reverence for sacred things, for established order; with well-formed habits of thrift, and with a fine old world courtesy. We would be well advised to benefit by their gifts and acquirements even as we would expect they would benefit by ours. What we have to teach them in citizenship, language and laws, can only be done by a sympathetic respect for their pride, and a wise patience.

In its farewell address to the governor general and Princess Alice, this house unanimously endorsed an expression of gratitude to their excellencies for tiheir services to Canada during the past six years. The address contained1 the following passage:

It must be a source of profound gratitude to you, on your retirement as governor general to realize that your years in Canada have witnessed victory over the enemies of freedom, and the emergence of Canada as a world power, with a foremost place among the united nations.

I am sure that it is a source of deep satisfaction to all Canadians to know that Canada has reached the position of a "foremost power among the united nations." The granting of the new status of Canadian citizenship will be in keeping with this stature and will be a souroe of pride to Canadians. pWhen bill No. 7 becomes law and is placed on, our

Canadian Citizenship

statute books, all Canadians, regardless of origin, will be able to meet on common ground. There will then be a real unity in all matters that challenge our common interests.

While it must be admitted that certain changes (and adjustments of a constitutional or legal nature must still be made, the chief obstacle in the way of the realization of our full nationhood lies, in the main, in the cultural and economic spheres. Although we have drawn upon Great Britain for most of what we possess in the way of culture, traditions, history, institutions, our way of life, and centuries of experience in practical statecraft, we nevertheless have now arrived at the stage where we must begin to develop our own distinctive character^

Let me say this, however, that while Canadian nationhood is being crystallized, it will in no way lessen our ties with the British commonwealth; rather it will strengthen our position, as an equal member nation, within the British, family of nations.

Mr. EDOUARD RINFRET (Outremont):

Mr. Speaker, in introducing bill No. 20 last session, the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) indicated that it was in reality a comprehensive amendment of the Naturalization Act, no more than a definition, a clarification of what existing statutes indicate Canadian nationality or citizenship to be.

Bill No. 7, which is essentially identical, is a substitute for the Naturalization Act. It replaces the Canadian Nationals Act; it improves the Immigration Act, without altering it to any great extent. It was away back in 1914 that the. words "British subject'' were defined by chapter 44. In 1921 the words "Canadian national" were defined by chapter 4, and in 1910 the words "Canadian citizen" were defined by chapter 27. These definitions, we are told, were unrelated, sometimes contradictory, and created difficulties of all kinds which it is sought to eliminate by the passing of the present bill.

I have no quarrel with the bill, inasmuch as its declared sole purpose is merely , to group together in a composite consolidation and to prune down and sort out articles which were previously scattered in three different laws, and for that reason I shall vote in favour of the bill.

I shall also support the bill because, although it does not go as far as, in my opinion, it might have gone, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction and will, I hope, be followed in the very near future by a further clarification and recognition. It has the merit of introducing, although incompletely and inadequately, a new significance, a meaning

hitherto non-existent, to the words "Canadian citizen" and of providing a medium whereby residents of the same country will be able to designate themselves legally. It will dispel the confusion which actually exists in the naturalization law, and will give to the inhabitants of this our country a necessary and long-awaited identity. However, this common appellation cannot alone and by itself promote true Canadianism or a real national status. In any event, I do not wish my vote to be interpreted as a reaffirmation of the principles enunciated in article 26, because I believe that this theory is antiquated, and, if I may so express myself, progressively conservative.

I do regret that the opportunity has not been seized of completely doing away with the . definitions of old and dusty statutes and of incorporating in the Canadian citizenship act the present-day concept of the majority of Canadians from ocean to ocean, that of Canadian subjects. Tags of 1910, 1914 or 1921 do not befit Canadians of 1946. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I have mentioned "Canadian subject" and not "Canadian citizen". We are told by specialists that a citizen is the inhabitant of a republic, whereas a subject is the inhabitant of a kingdom. Gladstone Murray wrote that Canadians were incurably royalists, and that "loyalty to the old country" had been replaced here in Canada by "loyalty to the crown." That is so, and may be more so amongst my Quebec compatriots than amongst others. One has only to recall the enthusiastic welcome of the French-speaking element of our population to Their Majesties in 1039 to admit with Mr. Murray that it was more rapturous than, and certainly as sincere as, that of their English-speaking fellow citizens. If these affirmations are true, as they are, would it not be preferable to use the term "subject" instead of the term "citizen", and would not this appellation better suit and express the aspirations of Canadians?

Here I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am incapable of understanding how the citizen of one country may at the same time be the subject of the king of another country. Is it not true that by the adoption of the statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada has become an independent kingdom, in personal union with the United Kingdom? As Maurice Olliviei has so delicately iexpressed it in his remarkable book. "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty":

The United Kingdom and Canada are to be considered as "separate kingdoms in personal union under the same king."

Is it not true, further, that a British subject is a subject of the king of Great Britain? How then, can a Canadian citizen-to wit, a citizen

Canadian Citizenship

of an independent sovereign state, Canada

be a British subject and owe allegiance to the king of a distinct sovereign state, Great Britain? The situation in 1946 is not the same as that of 1921. The aspirations have changed. What we need is the mentality of a common ideal, not merely a name. Should not attention have been given to the fact that the three statutes which the present bill seeks to replace were enacted at a time when internationally Canada was still in its infancy, long before the statute of Westminster established unequivocally the sovereignty of our country, at a time when Canada was represented in other countries principally by English diplomats, and when we did not have our own ambassadors and ministers?'

Canada has grown since 1910, 1914 and 1921. Canada is now a nation and has been recognized as such for at least twenty years by our co-members of the British commonwealth of nations, including Great Britain. The imperial conference of 1923 declared each dominion "free to negotiate and ratify its own treaties". That of 1926 agreed that each and all constituent members of the commonwealth were autonomous communities, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to the other in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common .allegiance to the crown, and freely associated. If Great Britain agreed that Canada was autonomous, equal, not subordinate, and united by the crown, why should some Canadians of English descent insist that it is not? If Great Britain has agreed that the crown is as much Canadian, Australian, Irish, as it is British, why should some so-called Canadians insist that it is not? Why should some so-called Canadians be more British than the king of Britain? The other nations of the world have long since recognized Canada's sovereignty. The few remaining restrictions on Canada's complete independence are, citing Clokie in his "Canadian Government and Politics", "relating to her connection with Great Britain and are relics of the time when Canada was a subordinate portion of the British empire." It is no longer a subordinate portion, and the relics should disappear.

There was a time also when Canada was a French colony: that was 185 years ago. In this short period Canada has progressed rapidly. It passed through what has been termed the first charter of Canadian liberty, the Quebec Act of 1774, through the Constitutional Act of 1791, through the Union Act of 1840, the confederation, and numerous imperial conferences. To-day, save for the [DOT]fact that fhere is officially no Canadian king,

that the British North American Act may not be amended except by the British parliament, and that appeals may still be lodged to the privy council in London, Canaida is free to conduct its internal or external affairs in whatever fashion it considers best for its own private interests. Even these thrpe restrictions are not deterring obstacles to Canada's complete and unrestricted independence, because Canada can of its own volition modify them and make them disappear.

One of our late ministers-I think it was that truly great Canadian, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe-at the beginning of the last war drew the attention of the House of Commons to the difference existing between His Majesty George VI, king of Ireland, who had not declared war upon Germany, and His Majesty'George VI, King of Canada, who had. Numerous are those who since that day have expressed similar views dealing with the separate entity of our sovereign. His Majesty the King, whatever may be his other titles, is in the affairs of Canada advised solely and completely by his Canadian ministers through the governor general or his administrator, and very definitely he could, and does, upon their counsel, decide differently from the king of Great Britain. I say, therefore, that even if in name he does not exist, in fact there is a king of Canada. I submit that when reference is made to the crown in any statute of Canada or in any imperial statute dealing with Canada, it is to this authority, to His Majesty George VI, who rules over Canada irrespective of his affiliations with other countries of the same commonwealth. I suggest that it is the essence of the statute of Westminster that Canada be united, to Britain through the crown, and not to the crown through Britain.

Concerning the amendments to the British North America Act, I do not believe that it would be exaggerated to claim that if both provincial and federal Canadian authorities were to apply to the British parliament and unanimously ask to be relieved of the obligation of submitting future amendments to London, and to be given such powers, these would be immediately forthcoming. The main obstacle is our lack of cooperation; there is no unanimity amongst ourselves.

As for appeals to the privy council, the question whether Canada has the power to abolish them is not even being discussed any more. The present difficulty is to know which jurisdiction, federal or provincial, has authority to act.

I am therefore justified in saying that Canada is a sovereign state, a world power; that it proved it magnificently and unques-;

Canadian Citizenship

tionably during the last war, and that externally it has universally been recognized as such for a long time. It is a pity therefore that internally, in the minds of its own inhabitants, Canada should be denied its own independence. It is regrettable that there should be one man in Canada, that there should be one representative in this house, who should belittle his country and lack the necessary confidence in it to pronounce it sovereign and give it the necessary attributes to make it such.

In a recent editorial, Saturday Night of Toronto recognized the following principle: it is a good one to apply:

It would be far better to admit frankly that we have a Canadian citizenship, which is not the citizenship of the British empire or of the United Kingdom; that we admit to this citizenship those whom we wish to and exclude all of those whom we don't, and that we regard the whole question as our business and our business alone. We should then, it may be hoped, begin to attach some importance to this Canadian citizenship and to desire to have it respected not only by other nations, but by our own lesser authorities.

This desire for respect should dictate our action. We are unfortunately lacking in it.

There need be no doubt-

Suggests Clokie in the book already cited- -that the people of Canada generally possess the feeling of separateness from the rest of the world. They are conscious of being distinct from, though in varying degrees akin to the peoples of the British isles, France and the United States of America. This separateness is the product of political separation. Canada is a term of political geography and Canadian nationalism is derived from political concepts. There is neither common language, religion, race nor prospect of establishing these.

He goes on:

The preliminary difficulty with Canadian nationalism lies in the attempt to create a nation without being able to establish homogeneity.

Do the people of Canada think of themselves as a distinct people? It is hard to answer. There exist, definitely. British sentiments in some of the English-speaking Canadians, separatism in the mind of some French-speaking Canadians-cultural and economic Americanization to which all Canada but especially Englishspeaking Canada is exposed. The Canadian nation is not indestructible as the Swiss. Its continued existence has been largely experimental and its future depends chiefly on the capacity to tolerate marked dissimilarities and yet cultivate mutual interests and loyalties.

Why is it impossible for us to imitate Brazil, whose inhabitants, Zweig tells us in his famous book, "Bresil, Terre d'Avenir":

-rival each other in one ambition-that of erasing all particularism and of becoming, as completely and as rapidly as possible, true Brazilians-melted in a new nation. This systematic fusion, of national or racial closed

groups, closed primarily to combat each other, has considerably facilitated the creation of a national and united conscience and it is astonishing to see how much the second generation already feels Brazilian.

In praising the Brazilian fusion, I am not forgetful, Mr. Speaker, of the opinion expressed by Sir George Etienne Cartier in presenting the confederation act. He said then that the fusion of the races in Canada into one was an impossibility, and that there was no power on earth capable of making us lose our language and be renegades to our faith. What was true in 1867 is truer to-day; I am'glad to note that Cartier was right and that our French language and our Catholic faith are to-day stronger than they were in his days. Roman Catholics constitute 43-34 per cent of our Canadian population, and Canadians of French descent represent the biggest individual source of our "inhabitants," having contributed 30-27 per cent thereof in contrast to 25-80 -per cent of English, 12-20 per cent of Scotch descent, 11-02 per cent of Irish origin.

There are, however, factors other than race and religion whereby all groups could be melted together and be brought much closer one to the other. One of these factors is our Canadian history, which should and could be written and taught in such a way as to make all Canadians devoted to Canada, proud of their country. The various elements of the Canadian population should not be made foes of one another at an age when they are unable fully to appreciate by themselves the consequences of their regrettably hostile acts or thoughts towards each other. *

Everything should be studied and a plan laid down that would have the result of producing closeness of patriotic ideas, thoughts and purposes. There are other countries where languages and religions are dissimilar and yet where patriotism is not different. Why is it impossible for Canada to imitate Switzerland, where men of three very different and distinct origins and mentalities have melted themselves together to create a new and independent state, a concrete and distinctive entity?

Everybody knows, as Edwin Muller expressed it, that:

The Swiss have no racial unity, no common language; they differ in religion and culture; they are German, French and Italian. But they have one thing in common-democracy. The Ger-man-Swiss dairy farmer of Appenzell may not speak the same language as the French-Swiss factory worker of Geneva, yet they understand each other. The cantons remain separate and individual, but under their motto, "One for all and all for one." they have formed a nation whose unity has withstood the most violent strains.

World war I was a severe test for this union of free men. In 1914 the German-

*>94

Canadian Citizenship

speaking Swiss felt themselves close to Germany, had shared its literature and culture. The French cantons were ardently pro-French and pro-ally. When it came to the test, the loyalty of German-Swiss and French-Swiss to their union was more binding than any other loyalties. Came world war II, and Switzerland was soon an island in a sea of triumphant-nazism. But this time there were no divided sympathies. All Switzerland was anti-nazi, the German. Swiss probably the most anti. The nazis then endeavoured by all imaginable means to promote "the pure race" complex. Hitler and his henchmen were making every effort, throughout the world and especially in Switzerland, to group all German-blooded populations. The German Swiss remained faithful to their own country; the Italian Swiss refused to answer the call of their fascist cousins, and the French Swiss forgot that he was French and remained a Swiss. Altogether, as one, they were neutral and ready to fight any enemy of Switzerland that dared lay a foot on its territory, whether that foe might be German, Italian or French. This is what I call true citizenship.

Why cannot Canada operate in the same way? Why cannot Canadians be Canadians -as Swiss are Swiss or as Brazilians are Brazilians? Differences of religion, race, language, are not worse here than they are, [DOT]or were, over there, or in Spain, Greece, Italy. Poland, Russia. France, or Great Britain.

We have heard a great- deal, Mr. Speaker, about a "bifocal" army and the harm this army is supposed to have caused to the unity *of the country. This harm is infinitesimal compared to that caused by the bifocal mentality of certain self-styled Canadians. Bifocal mentality

there is the reason for our incapacity to create a really distinctive nation. Some residents of Canada are Canadians only in part. Primarily, they are British, French, German, Italian, Scottish, Irish. Nothing apparently can take away the hyphen Between their country of origin and their country of residence. They are, and apparently must remain, British-Canadian, French-Canadian, et cetera. Canada for some is a transient place which will be left behind as .soon as fortune has been made therein. Whether it be London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, or any other place, numerous are those whose minds wander through the streets of a foreign city which they consider the ideal place in which to spend a quiet and well earned old age. They are Canadians in name; in soul they are English, French, German, et cetera.

The bill now before the house will not alter this fact. What we need is a law which will change this bifocal mentality, which will

iMr. llinfret.l

create patriotism, non-existent at the present time. It is fine to have a Canadian flag or a Canadian anthem, but I am not of those who think that these external signs will do much to promote patriotism. Patriotism has to come first and to be exteriorized by a flag or an anthem. They have a meaning, inasmuch as they have a soul. Without patriotism, a flag is a meaningless piece of cloth, and an anthem is an empty song. Not that I disapprove, Mr. Speaker, of the resolution presented to create a distinctive flag. I do most heartily approve of it, because there are in Canada, and they form the majority, true Canadians who have no other country than Canada, who have Canadian souls. For them, the flag will be the, symbol and the anthem will be the call of their nation. And for them, I hope, both the flag and the anthem will be wholly, exclusively and conclusively Canadian.

I do not wish to throw discredit upon, or to be disrespectful of, any culture having contributed' to the education of a single Canadian. I admire the Anglo-Saxon culture; it has many good points. I am proud of the French and Latin cultures; they also have many excellent qualities. But, I say, let us extract from the English and French characteristics and from any other culture, whatever is good in them, to achieve a distinctive, Canadian mentality-remembering, Mr. Speaker, that in order to form one big Canadian family we must include not only the French, the English, but all other nationalities which together represented, in 1941, twenty per cent of our population.

It ,is good sometimes to look at population statistics and to learn the lessons that flow therefrom. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians of other than British stock represent a majority in our country. It is well worth noting that whereas in 1871 the composite percentage of the French-English groups was ninety-two per cent of the total population, in 1941. it represented only eighty per cent. It is clear from these figures that more and more we must think in terms of other than French and English elements and take into consideration the demands, ideologies, antecedents and history of the other increasing twenty per cent and not restrict ourselves to British heritage, as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested in his speech of April 2, page 514 of Hansard, where he said:

Canada to me means ... a citizenship which maintains in this part of North America the highest heritage of British peoples every where in the world.

Canadian Citizenship

* We must include everybody. In th,e same line of thinking, it is well to consider that whereas in 1871 only 2-64 per cent of our population was foreign bom; in 1941 it was 8-82 per cent, more than three times as much.

These figures will be sufficient to show that it is important and urgent that something be *done to promote true Canadianism, to absorb this influx and to transform it in terms of Canadian culture. The post-war period will bring with it thousands and millions of demands for settlement in Canada; let us not be found sleeping, and let us not be found wanting. These immigrants must be made to be Canadians both in name and in soul; they must be made to recognize that this is their sole country, and that by asking to be made part of it they become real Canadians.

I am at ease, Mr. Speaker, in talking about true Canadians, because I feel that I am a true Canadian. The majority of the population of the province of Quebec feel that we are the true settlers of this country. Is not this complete attachment to the soil true' patriotism? The people of Quebec refer to themselves as "Canayens" and to representatives of other groups as "les Anglais". And mind you, Mr. Speaker, there is a justification for such an attitude. Their ancestors felt, and they to-day feel, that this country is theirs. If .we look back at history, at the text of the capitulation of Quebec, we note a marked distinction between the terms used to qualify the inhabitants of the country and the French garrison. The difference is still more marked in the text of the capitulation of Montreal, which differentiates between the French, the Canadians and the Acadians. The Canadians, ancestors of practically all our Quebecers of to-day, who had been at that time established in Canada for three, four or five generations, some who had settled there over one hundred years previously, felt really at home here in Canada. They were referred to by the representatives of both the British and French crown as "the Canadians."

The descendants of these Canadians of 1760

they total some 3.500,000 to-day-are scattered all over Canada. They have remained truly Canadians and, to this day, they still are and feel Canadians. They could have returned to France had they so desired, but they preferred staying here, because they had no other country, no other home than that of America. These Canadians in 1946 figure that the\', or at least their ancestors, have made a positive act of Canadianism, and they fail to see how and when the British subjects of English descent residing in Canada have done the same.

Under the statutes as they are, Mr. Speaker, is it not true that a British subject, born in any part of the British commonwealth, is not obliged to do anything in order to possess the plenitude of Canadian rights? He does not have to make a formal act of acceptance of Canadianism in the same manner as all other immigrants have to do. He does not have to take an oath of allegiance to our king, because the oath he has given to his king is deemed sufficient. Now, I may appear to repeat myself, but my king and the British king are not legally the same; they are not the same entity. And this the statute of Westminster implicitly recognizes. I have as much respect for and submission to my king as the inhabitant of Great Britain has for his; and I insist that, upon coming to my country, upon settling in the territory of my king, everyone should take an oath of allegiance to the king of Canada, and forego his submission to the king of Great Britain.

This may seem drastic, Mr. Speaker, but is it not the procedure that immigrants from all countries are asked to follow? They must renounce their former allegiance if they are to be made subjects of my king. Now, if Canada is a distinct nation, a different state, would it not be logical to say that to act differently, to allow anybody to owe allegiance to another but its king, constitutes an act of disrespect or disloyalty to the head of the country, to the king who rules Canada, to George VI. King of Canada?

The British commonwealth has been variously defined. I like the definition given by Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia university: "A federal relationship which consists in loyalty and devotion to a person who is the symbol of unity." The symbol of unity for the commonwealth is His Majesty the King, George VI, to whom loyalty and devotion are due. He represents the trait d'union between the various nations of the British family. He is a multi-entity, who, in his various capacities, advised by his different governments, reaches his multitudinous subjects of "divers appellations." But I say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as Canada is concerned we must look to only one symbol, to the king of Canada.

This affirmation is not to be interpreted as a cry for secession or separatism, because it is not. I do not wish Canada to cut away from the British commonwealth of nations, because I believe that it is in the real interest of Canada and of the other sister nations to continue in this association. But I want to emphasize that our present citizenship status does not correspond to the importance Canada

Canadian Citizenship

Mr. GREEN:

On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I am sure quite unintenionally, has misinterpreted what I said last evening. I am all for a stronger Canada and a stronger empire.

Mr. RINFRET:

I am glad to hear that, because I am for it too.

Mr. GREEN:

And for a more united

Canada.

Mr. RINFRET:

We are both in accord, then. I have already referred to the absence of formal acts of Canadianism performed by British-born coming to Canada. I cannot help but think, Mr. Speaker, that the different treatment accorded to these as against the other immigrants has something to do with the lack of complete Canadian unity, and this, in my opinion, is a complete answer to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the question. In the United States of America all immigrants, without exception, have to take out papers in order to become American citizens. All are treated alike, and when they do have their papers they all feel that they are Americans; they are proud to be called Americans and to be Americans without any hyphens. Here in Canada it is different; only certain of the immigrants are obliged by law to apply for citizenship, and when the naturalization certificates are issued to them the petitioners are made citizens of another country or, according to another prevailing view, not of a country in particular but of a group of independent states. Would it not be more

decisive, if we wish them to become true Canadians, to make them Canadians, and to give them a true Canadian status?

There are, of course, fanatics who will gasp at these various propositions of mine. I am not concerned, because those fanatics are not Canadians; they are an3'thing but Canadians. We have some in the province of Quebec, who will not see further than their provincial noses. They are the separatists, the nationalists. The result of the last election shows the extent of their weight in the voter's mind. I know them well; their provincial leader is the representative of part of my constituency of Outremont in the legislature of Quebec. I visited that portion of my county and I vehemently attacked the narrow point of view of those partisans of a parochial nationalism. I am against all narrow and petty nationalism, Mr. Speaker, whatever its origin. In the last campaign I insisted upon telling all my electors of Outremont that I despised short-sighted nationalism, and, in order to be certain that interested parties would understand, I condemned French nationalism in the French section, English or Irish nationalism in the English and Irish section, and Jewish nationalism in the Jewish community. I told them that my nationalism was not a regional one. In my manifesto I made one single request; a really Canadian vote and the opportunity of assuring the Prime Minister of the country of the true Canadian feeling of the electors of Outremont. This mandate I have received by an overwhelming majority, and this mandate I am carrying out to-day.

There exists, Mr. Speaker, outside of my province another peculiar, narrow nationalism. Its difference from that of my province resides in the fact that it is the exact opposite, which does not make it more Canadian. The proponents of this narrow view are convinced that they are expressing the view of- the majority of the people of Canada, which makes it more dangerous. The sooner these gentlemen realize that they have not a monopoly of patriotism, that they make a radical mistake about the meaning of the word Canadianism, and that they represent only extremists, the better it will be for the country. They are presumably the descendants of some British subjects coming from New England, not from Britain, whom Governor Murray, in January, 1764, tagged the "most inveterate fanatics"; like their forefathers, they would seem tothink themselves superior in rank and fortune to the soldier and the Canadians, as they are pleased to deem the first, voluntary, and the other, "born slaves"

Canadian Citizenship

These were Murray's own words, in January, 1764, when referring to merchants who had then resorted to this country. Let there be no mistake. They are not superior, and Canadians are not slaves.

I have mentioned two groups of extremists; both of them refuse to recognize' the fact that Canada is and must remain a bilingual and bicultural country. However, as far as recognizing the bilingual principle, one portion of the population has contributed to a much greater extent to the fulfilment of our goal. Of the total of 1,474,000 who could speak both French and English in 1941, some 1.152,713 were of French origin, whereas only 216,385 were of British Isles races. Percentagewise, it is 78 per cent of total in the first instance, and only 14 per cent in the other. Figured in percentage of the respective groups, it shows that 33 per cent or one-third of the French descent population were bilingual in 1941, whereas only 3-7 per cent of the British Isles descendants could speak both French and English.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.

Go ahead.

Mr. RINFRET:

My purpose in bringing these figures to the attention of the house is to emphasize the effort made by the Frenchspeaking population to understand its Englishspeaking compatriots and the lack of cooperation given in the other direction. Unilinguism, whether it comes from recognized French or English-speaking portions of the country, will not help union and understanding between the two big races. ,

Mr. Herbert Lank, vice-president of Canadian Industries Limited, born in Great Britain, recently delivered an address in French before the annual congress of the association of the commercial science graduates of the school of higher studies of the university of Montreal. He said:

(Translation):

I like your language and I am proud to be able to speak it. My knowledge of French, however limited it may be, has opened for me the door to your culture and your civilization, which are unfortunately beyond the reach of all too many English-speaking people, while your knowledge of English makes it easier for you to become acquainted with our culture and our civilization. Let us use our respective languages, which are priceless instruments for the purpose of carrying out beneficial exchanges, since the only result can be, on both sides, a higher civilization and culture.

(Text) :

I agree with Mr. Lank, and, with him, I regret that the desire to interchange studies

of cultures and civilization has been unfortunately one-sided, with the French element providing most endeavours and the Englishspeaking practically none.

I have referred to extremists or fanatics. Naturally they are the most prolific in articles and speeches. They speak the loudest, and they are given the most space in certain newspapers and elsewhere. Care should be exercised to prevent utterances unimportant and insignificant in one part of the country from being given undue publicity and thereby being exaggerated, or given credence to, in other parts of the country.

Fortunately for Canada, between the two poles of extreme thoughts that I have indicated lie the big majority of my fellow countrymen, those who have only one country, bounded by the Atlantic on one side and by the Pacific on the other; those who wish to make of Canada, of the whole of Canada, a true, a strong nation. They must unite to fight reactionary groups.

Leaving the anti-Canadians, pro any other country, whichever it might be, to their bifocal mentality, let those in favour of Canada-as a country-as a nation, as a sovereign state, not only wish for the realization of their ambition, but do something about it.

Let us follow the example set by 1'Abbe Maheux, and teach to all Canadians that Canada, in its entirety, is a real entity, a glorious reality, an object worth while cherishing. We must convince them that their hearts are sufficiently big to contain the love of their family, of their town, of their religion, of their province, and above all, of the whole of Canada.

We must teach to all Canadians that their country, as a matter of fact and reality, is a bicultural, bilingual one, that, in order for one section of the country to understand the other it is necessary to learn both languages and cultures. We must teach a common history of Canada, as a means of avoiding errors and horrors of the past, and as an inspiration for the accomplishment of what is advantageous to the homeland.

Finally, we must teach to all Canadians, a patriotism and a civism that will give one a proper sense of his responsibilities towards his country, whereby he will have more respect for his duty than for his privileges.

With these purposes in mind, the naturalization or citizenship act should be amended in such a way as to make us the Canadian subjects of His Majesty George VI, instead of maintaining directly or indirectly the anomalous and paradoxical appellation of Cana-dian-British subjects.

Canadian Citizenship

The election act should also be changed to grant voting rights only to, and restrict eligibility to, Canadian subjects. This would guarantee that no foreign-minded individual would sit in the House of Commons.

What I claim for Canada is a national synthesis, the preservation of the immeasurable wealth that could be accumulated by the contact of the many races and inherited from the various national cultures belong to Canada's people.

I want Canada for Canadians and Canadians for Canada. With the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, "I desire to see the largest possible measure of the same ability to unite different religious groups in the support of a single national policy."

I would regret a continued lack of collaboration on the part of certain elements of the population, because in the words of Gabriel Jaray-

(Translation):

A divided Canada, instead of making the weight of her power felt in the sphere of world affairs and playing therein the part of an arbitrator, will find it difficult to maintain true independence, drawn along as she will he to one side or the other by outside pressures and internal oscillations.

(Text) :

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. KNIGHT:

Will the hon. member

permit a question?

Mr. CHURCH:

I would rather the hon.

member take up his own time.