On the orders of the day:

On the orders of the day:

The house resumed from Friday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the second reading of bill No. 7, respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens. Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, at different times during the debate my thoughts have gone back some nineteen years to a scene in a classroom at Osgoode Hall Law School when the class was studying private international law. In the lectures on the subject of the Canadian Naturalization Act I am sure one young man in that class would have been interested indeed if he could have foreseen that some nineteen years later he would be introducing in this House of Commons a citizenship bill. The student of nineteen years ago is the Secretary of State to-day. And had I been able to foresee the future I should have been surprised to know that the student who then sat two seats away from the man who is now Secretary of State would now be rising to support the principle of the bill introduced by the Secretary of State. Some, things have been said in the debate which I think will be deplored by those who love our country and feel that it can become great only to the extent to which it is united. From time to time during the course of the debate there has been evidence of a bitter spirit. There has been evidence of hairsplitting and narrow legalism. I hope in what I have to say to-day I may be able to contribute something toward better understanding. There are strong reasons which make it perfectly obvious that we must have in this country to-day a citizenship act. We must have Canadian citizenship. To put it on one ground, if you like: there are important technical reasons why there must be a proper definition of Canadian citizenship. At the present time we have the Naturalization Act, the Canadian Nationals Act, and the Immigration Act. All of them, touch some aspect of the problem of citizenship, some aspect of the status of Canadians living within this country. In some respects they are contradictory. In fact, our present legislation in this respect is something of a hodge-podge. It is high time that it was reexamined with a view to codification of the provisions which relate to citizenship. There are also important reasons, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the status of Canadian citizens in their private capacity. One need mention only one or two-the status of married women, and the status of children born outside Canada to Canadian parents, to point to subjects where there are great weaknesses in existing legislation. There is need for clarification and codification. But there are greater and broader reasons than these why Canadian citizenship should be the subject of legislative enactment at this time. The first and principal one, in the face of all the facts, is the necessity for contributing something in legislative form that will be effectual in the creation of Canadian unity. I agree with what has been said by some who preceded me in the debate, that this bill alone will not create Canadian unity. But given sympathetic application and given sympathetic treatment now by the house I think the bill is capable of making some contribution-toward national unity. " In the second place, this bill does hold out the hope that, given sympathetic and effective, administration, it' will have the effect of creating in the minds of Canadians a greater appreciation of the value of citizenship and of the rights which flow from it. We have lost much, in this country because we have not put a. sufficient price and value upon citizenship.. We have taken our rights as citizens far too-much for granted. We have only to look at the example of the United States to see what can be accomplished in creating in the minds of citizens, by proper rules and ceremonies and by education, an appreciation of the fundamental value of citizenship. Citizenship in the United States has been a great unifying factor; it can be made so in this country. I support the bill on general principles because I believe that if it is enacted and is given sympathetic administration it will contribute something to the desirable end of national unity. Before I leave this subject may I say just this word about ceremony. I am glad that provision has been made in section 38 of the bill for appropriate ceremonies to attend the granting of certificates of citizenship in order that applicants may be duly impressed with Canadian Citizenship

the advantages of Canadian citizenship. This is all to the good. There is a growing need of it at the present time. I should like to refer now to an article which appeared in the Toronto Evening Telegram of April 1, 1946, describing some proceedings in the naturalization court in that *city. It reads in part: Queen's husband Mr. King bars German's citizenship Alfred Alpert, factory worker, was smart enough to get out of Germany in 1939 ahead of the nazis, but he's still a little muddled about world figures. "Mr. King is king of the British empire," he told Judge Denton in naturalization court when seventy-eight new Canadians took the oath of allegiance to the crown. "Where does the King live?" the judge asked: "The King is in 'Ottawa," replied Alpert, who arrived in England in June, 1939, was at Kitchener camp and Isle of Man camp and migrated to Canada in July, 1940. "I admit it's a bit confusing," said Judge Denton. "Where does the queen live, then?" "She lives in England." '"What is her name?"-"Queen Elizabeth." "What is the king's name?" Alpert was stymied. Judge Denton gave him a hint: "The queen's husband," he explained, "what is his name ?" "His name is Mackenzie King," Alpert replied. There is a great need of giving to those who come to this country to make it their home an opportunity, which perhaps has not been fully provided for them in the land from which they come, to learn what citizenship means, to learn what the rights and the responsibilities of citizenship mean in a country like ours. I think as a nation we have hitherto failed deplorably in this respect. This is an age of adult education, but we in this country have not realized the great need of affording opportunities for adult education to those who come from other lands to make Canada their home. We have often treated as foreigners those new Canadians, who have come here with the full ' permission of the laws of this country to make it their home. To me that is a denial of the fundamental principle of Canadian citizenship. Once people are admitted to this country, once they become citizens, no lines should be drawn, racial or otherwise, which will have the effect of discriminating between different classes of citizens. Due regard must be had in the future, far more than has been had in the past, to the duty of providing to those who come to this *country to make it their home the opportunity to learn of all that is involved in Canadian -citizenship, and there should be impressed upon all applicants for citizenship a due regard not only for the rights but also for the responsibilities of citizenship. I think it is worthy of the attention of this house that we should consider now the true significance of Canadian citizenship. Canadian citizenship involves an assertion of our rights as equal individuals before the law, -and before the electoral law, to determine as we will the destiny of this country. We owe *much to those who have gone before us and who have provided for us the privileges of this Canadian citizenship. If there was more regard for the sacrifices of those who have gone before us, there would be a higher appreciation of the privileges of citizenship in Canada. Think of the contribution made to the developing concept of Canadian citizenship by Macdonald, Cartier, Laurier and Sir Robert Borden, Think of the contribution made to that expanding significance of Canadian citizenship when in the time of Sir Robert Borden this country, by the hand of a minister of Canada representing His Majesty the King, signed the treaty of peace in 1919. It was a great step in our national development. We need to have more pride in Canada. We need a greater sense of achievement on the part of our country anil our people-and when I say "our people" I mean all our people. We are not yet adequately conscious of being Canadians. This country is finding its soul, at soul born of sacrifice. I for one am an optimist for Canada. I can see nothing to circumscribe or limit the future of this country except the extent of our faith in it and our faith in ourselves under God's guidance. It is not all clear sailing in this country to develop a sense of citizenship. Let us be quite frank. We have had a problem created by race and it is a difficult problem. It has led to a hyphenation of Canadianism which I say it is the duty of every citizen of this country to fight. We must put aside this idea of a hyphenated Canadianism which will not fit into a worthy conception of Canadian citizenship or Canadian unity. Those who exalt race above Canadian unity or Canadian citizenship do a great disservice to Canada. We know perfectly well that so far as the great races of this country are concerned, racial purity is a biological myth. There has been a mingling of the races in Canada, and there will continue to be. A couple of years ago the premier of the province of Ontario, Hon. George Drew, addressing an audience composed largely of new Canadians, said that in the veins of his two children was mingled the blood of seven races. I daresay there are Canadian Citizenship many of us in this chamber who can say that we have in our veins the blood of several races at least. If in approaching this question of the relationship between race and nationality, unity and a common Canadian citizenship, we realize that unity does not demand uniformity, and that we are operating under a * constitution which gives certain rights to our brothers whose maternal language is the French language; if we approach the problem with good-will and understanding and sympathy, there is no reason why there cannot be a true sense of Canadian unity. ^ There is a work of reconciliation to be done in this country. We saw the need of it in thig house in the debates of last Thursday and Friday. It seems to me that that work of reconciliation must begin, here in Ottawa. Whoever seeks to exploit racial differences for political advantage commits a crime against Canada, against Canadian unity and against our proper sense of Canadian citizenship. If we know each other better there will be far less danger of suspicion and distrust. Canadians must know each other better. That is a duty that rests upon us all. In the light of the necessity of creating in Canada a deep sense of national unity there must be no thought of pitting aggressive minorities and aggresive majorities against one another. We have to put first the interests of Canada as the whole of Canada, as a nation. As the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) said in his speech in the house last Thursday, historically those who first held the title "Canadiens" were persons born in this country of French descent. It is a title which we are all proud to possess. I ask hon. members to recognize that it is not a contribution to Canadian unity to have a member of this house say: I have a superior claim to this title. It is now the proud possession of all of us and we should all be big enough to admit that our rights to it are now complete and equal. The two great races in this country owe debts to each other which they do not, it seems to me, adequately realize. Reference was made in some of the earlier speeches in this debate to the articles of capitulation which were signed after the fall of Quebec in 1759, and after the fall of Montreal in 1760, followed by the Quebec Act of 1774, the constitutional act of 1791, the Act of Union of 1840 and finally the British North America Act itself. It is a plain fact of history that had Canada not become British when it did, it would later have become American. Those whose mother tongue is English may equally well be reminded that but for the loyalty of the Canadiens, and had guarantees not been extended to those whose mother tongue was French, Canada would not have been retained for the British crown at the time of the American revolution but would have become American. These two races owe a debt to each other which they can never adequately repay. Let us therefore in all common sense and justice recognize it, and let us be conscious of a sense of obligation to each other. I believe that will promote better understanding and a greater appreciation of each other. We hear talk from time to time of language rights. This question of language was fully settled in the British North America Act, by section 133. It is our duty to refute, wherever and whenever we hear it, the talk of those who say that the national fabric of this country is weakened by there being two official languages. It is not so. Those who follow that line whittle and hack away at the foundation of confederation, because without section 133 confederation would never have been brought about, and without it confederation to-day could not continue. I want to say a word with respect to one passage on bilingualism in the speech of the hon. member for Outremont-and I approach this as one who has the desire and hope to improve what little facility he possesses in the French language. I think no one will promote bilingualism in this country by scolding those who speak the English language for not having acquired any facility in French. It may be that the hon. member for Outremont did not intend to rail against those who1 have not acquired that facility. I think on sober reflection he will appreciate that that is not the way in which better understanding can be brought about between the two great races in this country. We must concentrate above all else on understanding each other, and with tolerance and good will any problems attendant on the question which the hon. member for Outremont raised are, I think, capable of solution. Two sections of this bill, which are essential in the light of the principle of the measure have occupied the attention of some who have preceded me in the debate. I refer to section 26 and section 10. Without a careful examination of the provisions of these two sections the principle of the bill cannot be adequately debated. I wish to say a word with regard to section 26, particularly in view of the interpretation put upon it on Friday last by the hon. member for Outremont and the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). Canadian Citizenship

Section 26 provides that a Canadian citizen is a British subject. The parliament of Canada could not enact any contrary legislation unless Canada renounced her allegiance to His Majesty the King. Whether that section is in the bill or not we shall continue to be subjects of the king. Let no one be under any illusion in that respect. When I heard those two hon. members on Friday last speak of section 26 as being ambiguous, I asked myself what could be plainer. The section consists of seven words: A Canadian citizen is a British subject. That is simply declaratory of the law. It will be the law, it must be the law, as long as we are subjects of the king. I detected in the remarks of those two hon. members the suggestion that to be a British subject means to be subject to the jurisdiction of the imperial parliament at Westminster. It is not so. Ever since the statute of Westminster in 11)32, the imperial parliament has renounced all legislative power over Canada except so far as this parliament consents, so there can no longer be any justification for talk in this country of any of its citizens being subject to the laws enacted at Westminster. We are completely autonomous; nothing further is needed to achieve autonomy for Canada. The hon. member for Outremont went on to say that so far as he is concerned His Majesty the King must divest himself of certain titles before Canadian citizens should be content to be his subjects. He said that we must change the provisions of this bill and must say, in effect, that to be a Canadian citizen is to be a Canadian subject of His Majesty the King of Canada. We had statements such as this from the hon. member, as he is reported at page 595 of Hansard: . . . 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. That statement is false to law, to fact, to sense. The hon. member for Outremont said that that was in accord with the statute of Westminster. He Will not find in the statute of Westminster one word which says that the British king, the king of Great Britain and the king of Canada, are not the same legal entity. What is more, if he will examine the declaration which came from the imperial conference in 1926, which was the foundation upon which the statute of Westminster was built in 1932, he will find these words, referring to the component countries of the commonwealth : They are autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their internal or domestic affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown- Note that, Mr. Speaker-united by a common allegiance to the crown: -and fully associated as members of the British commonwealth. It is inherent in the association that now exists between the component members of the British commonwealth that the crown is one entity, one crown, one and indivisible. That common crown is the one entity which binds all parts of this commonwealth of equal partners. It is not only the greatest binding force amongst the members of the commonwealth: it is in fact the greatest binding force 'in Canada-our common allegiance to His Majesty the King. We should abandon a lot of silly ideas and silly talk about inferiority and subordination. There is no justification in fact or in law or in sense for such arguments. But some members go on fighting battles that were fought and won many, many years ago. They are not helping the cause of Canadian unity. There was no idea of inferiority on the part of Sir John A. Macdonald or on the part of Sir Wilfrid Laurier or on the part of Sir Robert Borden in their relations with the British Colonial Office and the Dominions Office-far from it. Our allegiance to His Majesty the King, which we share with all parts of this commonwealth and empire is the greatest binding force in Canada. What are we invited to do by those who would reject section 26? Without the fact on which section 26 is built you would not have Canadian unity, you could not build a Canadian citizenship. But the hon. member for Outremont and the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, as well as some other hon. members, say: Oh, take that section out of the bill; we have to have that changed. Do you think for one minute that you can unite Canadian citizens on the basis of rejecting the idea of a common crown for the commonwealth? You will never do it-never. Let us examine for a moment what is involved in the ideas put forward by these hon. members. They say: We want to reject the idea of being British subjects-as though there was something servile in the title. The term means only this, those who owe allegiance to the king, to the crown. That, and no other, is the significance of the term "British subject". Those who say: We are grown up, we do not want to be British subjects any longer,, are, in effect, asking Canadians to forfeit a gener-

Canadian Citizenship ous measure of their own birthright, one of the greatest privileges provided for free men in the world to-day. If we reject the concept of being British subjects it will mean that we shall renounce privileges such as those I shall now mention. When our citizens go to the United Kingdom to take up residence they go on a footing of equality with all other citizens of the United Kingdom. They qualify for the franchise in the same length of time-I think it is six months-as any other resident of that cduntry. It means that a Canadian going to Australia to take up residence there enjoys, because he is a British subject, all the rights of citizens of that country, and he qualifies for the franchise just as any other citizen of that country does in a period of six months. A British subject going from Canada to New Zealand steps into that land on a footing of equality with all citizens of New Zealand and qualifies for the franchise in one year. A British subject going from Canada to South Africa enjoys all the privileges of citizenship and qualifies for the franchise, in two years if he is a native-born British subject, and in five years if he is a foreign-born naturalized British subject. We are told, however, that Ireland is the example we should follow. Are we going to accept the course taken by Eire in 1935 as an example for Canada? Reference ,was made to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1935, and the Aliens Act passed by that country in the same year, by which it is provided that citizens of Eire will no longer be British subjects. But I think it is well that the house should know that the Aliens Exemption Order of 1935 provides for the exemption of Canadians and persons from other parts of the British commonwealth, from that principle, so that British subjects are now dealt with by Eire on a basis of reciprocity. I have referred to some advantages which Canadians enjoy in going to other parts of the commonwealth. We must not overlook at the same time the advantage of our association with the commonwealth in terms of protection and in terms of the status which it gives us in the world. Could we ever hope to enjoy the position in the world and the respect in which the world holds us to-day if we stood alone, if we sought to proceed as some hon. members who spoke on Friday suggest we should do, and renounce our right and title as British subjects? These hon. members invite Canadians to the renunciation of great rights and privileges. If Canadian citizenship is to be bought at the price of a renunciation of the rights which we as British subjects enjoy in all parts of the world, we shall be paying too great a price for it. It is a price we do not need to pay, and this bill by section 26 provides that Canadians shall not be called upon to pay that price for Canadian citizenship. I wish to say a word now about section 10 of the bill. I have said something already about the advantages which accrue to Canadians by reason of the fact that they are British subjects. What about a little reciprocity? What about the lot of British subjects from other parts of the commonwealth who come to Canada, as the land of their choice, to make this country their home? What does section 10 say about them? It says in effect that those who come from other parts of the commonwealth-British subjects, trained in citizenship, in no way inferior to ourselves in their appreciation of the rights and duties of citizenship-are to be treated, with one solitary and inconsequential exception, as though they were aliens. That is the effect of section 10 of this bill as it stands to-day; they are put on a basis of equality with aliens. What does it mean? Examine the provisions of section 10. What are the requirements of applicants for Canadian citizenship?