Mr. GREEN:

Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you, as I have had to do on two other occasions, that the minister himself, in making his speech on the second reading of this bill, dealt with section 10, and said there was not anything in it worth worrying about.

Mr. MARTIN:

I did not mention the section.

Mr. GREEN:

Well, in effect that is what he said, and every time he gets a little worried about remarks made about some part of the bill he gets up and raises this point of order. Every speech made thus far on the second reading has contained some reference to one or other of the sections. For example, the member for Outremont and the member for Chambly-Rouville spoke on section 26, and the minister allowed them to go ahead without raising any point.

Mr. MARTIN:

I certainly did.

Mr. GREEN:

I suggest that he is wide of the mark now when he tries to stop the member for Eglinton.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Last week I took occasion to draw the attention of hon. members to Beauchesne, third edition, page 228, paragraph 656, which states that on the motion for the second reading it is out of order to discuss clauses of the bill. On each occasion on which a member was called to order it was stated that he was discussing a clause that was of particular importance and which it was necessary to consider at the moment. Hon. members, I am sure, will understand that it is the duty of the Speaker to point out to any member who has the floor, when it is necessary to do so, that a particular standing order requires that this or that shall be done.

The Speaker has no alternative; he must draw 'the attention of hon. members to the rules as they stand. On. the second reading of a bill hon. members must confine themselves to the principle. I realize that an hon. member may find it necessary occasionally to refer to particular sections, and he may do so without discussing each clause of the bill. It is extremely difficult to keep the discussion in conformity with the rules of the house, and I have no doubt that hon. members on both sides appreciate the importance of this rule which requires that discussion at this stage be confined to the principle of the bill. I would ask the hon. member to be good enough to observe the rule.

Mr. FLEMING:

I have no intention whatever of discussing the details of section 10, Mr. Speaker. I did discuss section 26 at some length and what I have to say with reference to section 10 has to do with its effect in relation to the principle of the bill. In this connection I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Outremont, at page 596 of Hansard. He was referring to the fact that, as he says, one of the reasons for disunity in Canada is in part this, that British subjects coming to Canada have been able to acquire rights of citizenship here without being subjected to the same requirements as aliens. The hon. member said : .

I cannot help hut 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 itaity.

Obviously the hon. member can in this respect give whole-hearted support to the bill, because the bill does put the British subject, coming from other parts of the commonwealth, in the same position as an alien coming from any section of the globe-except in one respect; he is absolved from the mere detail of filing a declaration of intention. He must do everything else that the alien is required to do. He must prove his lawful entry; he must prove five years' residence in Canada; he must prove good character and an adequate knowledge of either English or French; he must prove that he has an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and his intention to take up permanent residence. In other words, he has to go through precisely the same procedure, in all lespects, to supply the same proof and adhere to the same rules as an alien from any foreign land. That shocks me. Surely the purpose of requiring five years' residence is that we may train people in our conception of liberty and freedom so that they may take their place within the democracy of our con-

Canadian Citizenship

eeption. Do we need to put a British subject, with all his background, with all his present possession of everything that we have in the way of citizenship and knowledge of democratic processes, in the humiliating position of having to conform to the same procedure precisely and to observe the same rules as the alien? It is a humiliation which this bill seeks to heap upon British subjects from other parts of the commonwealth. I do not think that is a basis upon which we shall build the national unity which we so much desire. We must work for unity and understanding; it will not be possible for us to do so on that basis. People coming from other parts of the commonwealth, if they are qualified to be good citizens, must not be placed in that invidious position.

We have a great heritage, and we should value it as Canadians. We should value it far more than it has been valued in the past. We must have a sense of indebtedness to the past, to those who have gone before us, if we are to have an adequate appreciation of our privileges to-day and our opportunities in the future of this country. But there must be great vision in Canada, a vision of unity of all citizens from coast to coast, marching shoulder to shoulder and working for Canada. Without vision the people perish. There must be a great national vision which encompasses the high place of Canada in the world and among the self-governing nations of the British commonwealth.

In what I am about to say now, Mr. Speaker, in your mother tongue, I am not attempting to do anything smart or superficial. I am simply attempting to offer, in a spirit of good will, a gesture, a desire for understanding, an indication of my willingness as one member of the house-I am sure this is true of all members-to approach our common Canadian problems with sympathy and understanding. I hope you will bear with me. I may tell you that I have not been too successful in practising conversation in French with the comely young ladies who take such good care of us in the parliamentary dining-room; such is my facility in the language that when one morning recently I ordered porridge-upon which I may say I was raised-I was served scrambled eggs! Maybe what you are about to hear is a scrambled-eggs version of the French language. Nevertheless here it is. (Translation);

The consideration of this bill affords to this house an opportunity to give Canadian citizenship the full importance it deserves and to dispel all doubts as to its meaning. This citizenship is our pride and it constitutes our privilege and our priceless heritage.

We all love our country. Certainly no one among us would exchange his title of Canadian for that of a citizen of any other country in the world. -

Our Canadian citizenship links us together with bonds of unity and equality, from whatever province we come and whatever be the race or language of our fathers.

Too often, unfortunately, racial considerations and prejudices have been allowed to obscure the meaning of our Canadian citizenship.

Hear, hear.

Mr. FLEMING:

As Canadians, wre should constantly endeavour to emphasize those things that are common to all of us and that form our common heritage; It seems to me that we could strengthen our bonds of unity in Canada by avoiding the use of a hyphen when defining our citizenship. We should be proud and happy to call ourselves simply "Canadians".

On June 6, 1943, speaking in Kingston, my leader, Mr. John Bracken, made the following statement:

Sir John Macdonald's first consideration was Canada-not French-speaking Canada, not English-speaking Canada, but Canada, a Canadian Canada. And we tp-day must have no less high an ideal. Let us look upon all our citizens, of whatever racial extractions, as Canadians. Let us have less of hyphenated Cana-dianism. Our new citizens don't want it, and we don't. In the United States they do not speak of President Roosevelt as a Dutch-American, nor Mr. Willkie as a German-American, nor of Mayor LaGuardia as an Italian-American. They are Americans. Let us in Canada be Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a few personal observations. I am descended from Irish forbears. Am I, for that reason, an Irish-Canadian? I am also of Scottish stock. Does that make me a Scottish-Canadian? Some of my ancestors were Englishmen. Should I therefore be termed an English-Canadian? My lineage can also be traced back to French forbears. My grandfather told me, when I was a boy, that one of my ancestors had fought under the Marquis de Montcalm on the plains of Abraham. Does that make me a French-Canadian? Then, what am I? Am I a French-Canadian, a Scottish-Canadian, an English-Canadian, or an Irish-Canadian? Mr. Speaker, I wish to consider myself simply as a Canadian.

The various races I have just mentioned, as well as others, have made a splendid contribution to the building up of this country and to the enrichment of our national heritage. This heritage can surpass all others in richness owing to the diversity of our origins.

602 COMMONS

Canadian Citizenship *

Our citizenship will be all the more precious if we are ready to unite and work for Canada in a spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and equality.

The party to which I belong has made the following statement:

We recall, with pride and gratitude, that our party rose to greatness through a fruitful partnership between two great races, English and French. We affirm our belief that the two cultures are part and parcel of our future development and that Canada's true greatness depends on sympathy and understanding between these two original races and all other races that have come to join in the building of our country.

Realizing the inherent greatness of Canada as a nation and recognizing the strength that can come only from unity and purpose, we believe that all the peoples of Canada should unite in fostering a common pride in Canadian achievement and institutions and a common loyalty to our ancestral traditions of equality, justice and toleration, and should seek, with due regard for constitutional rights, to achieve that profound sense of the importance of national interests which will ensure harmony and cooperation and that future for our country which was the aim of the Fathers of Confederation.

(Text):

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Go on.

Mr. MARTIN:

I am sure the sense of the house is that the }jon. gentleman should be allowed to continue.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am very sorry to have interrupted the hon. gentleman, but if he has unanimous consent he may continue. (Translation):

Mr. FLEMING:

Mr. Speaker I shall have concluded within a minute.

Let us then endeavour with more energy than ever to strengthen our dear Canada by linking ourselves with bonds of unity and equality. Let us be proud of our title "Canadian citizen".

(Text):

Mr. D. A. CROLL (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) on the splendid speech he made. I am sure we particularly enjoyed the latter part of it. I wish also to join with other hon. members in congratulating the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin), first on having sponsored this bill and second on piloting it through the house, as I am sure he will. I feel certain the house will approve the bill in principle. We may differ as to some of the details, and when the time comes for third reading I shall certainly make myself heard. When the hon. gentleman introduced the bill in the house I believe he concluded his remarks by saying that when this bill finally passes everyone in Canada who is covered by it will be able to

say, "I am a Canadian." May I say to him that for his imagination, his application and his thoroughness there are many of us in Canada who will say of him that he is a great Canadian.

The bill now before the house has been received by the great majority of Canadians with a large measure of indifference. They will now be Canadians and British subjects rather than British subjects and Canadians; so what? That has been the response of the majority of the people who will be affected by this bill, and every man, woman and child in Canada will be affected by it. It is very much like the recurrent debates on the national flag. Maybe we shall have one; maybe we shall not have one. Perhaps it should have the union jack in one comer, perhaps the fleur-de-lis on the fly; perhaps stripes, or perhaps the maple leaf. I understand that already we have had 1,800 submissions of designs. I should have thought we would have 18,000. Again I say that the majority of the people in Canada who are affected by the problem, and whose flag this will be, are consumed with apathy over the whole question. Maybe we shall have the old red ensign; maybe we shall have a crest with the maple leaf. So what? I was impressed by the fact that even newspapers which are attempting to whip up a little enthusiasm for one design or another design or for no design at all, merely the union jack, had to throw in a pretty girl, with shapely legs, her skirts hiked well up above her knees, in order that the picture might be good enough to interest people in the flag.

With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, I would mention one group of citizens in this country to whom the question of citizenship and the question of a national flag are of the deepest concern, who are fascinated by this bill, and whose hearts, from sheer joy, miss a beat at its implications. They are those who are not charter members of this Canadian organization, like my French-speaking friends; they are not those of Anglo-Saxon stock, like so many others of my friends; they are not those whose birthright gave them every freedom and privilege this country of ours can offer. No, sir; when I mention some of those to Whom these questions of citizenship and national flag are so important, I mean those who had to save and struggle and endure hardship to achieve the status which is so casually accepted by our brethren; I mean the new Canadians-and in saying that, I mean 20-2 per cent of the population of Canada. I mean also that one-fifth of our population which can hold1 its head as high as any other when anyone raises the question of loyalty to Canada.

Canadian Citizenship

I am one of them. For forty-one years of my forty-six I have lived in this country, have enjoyed liberties and opportunities it has given me, I have gladly allowed myself to become assimilated into its community. What little service it has allowed me to give, I have proudly given. Yet I remain a new Canadian. I am not a native-born; I am a naturalized citizen. Behind me remains, and occasionally I hear, the reminder of those cold years when, from the wrong side of the tracks, this new Canadian could only look across enviously at the warmly-lighted windows of those who enjoyed Canadian birthright and who so casually accepted the high privileges which were theirs from the cradle on.

That, if I may say so, has been the shocking thing so far as most of us are concerned. We have come, in the main, from lands of oppression, hunger and fear; we, or our fathers, have struggled mightily to assemble the little bit which was needed for that which we sought-the opportunity to be accepted on our abilities, not on the basis of the class or group to which birth has assigned us; freedom of education and opportunity for ourselves and our children; a land and a democracy which would engage our hearts and loyalty as never could those downtrodden acres we were leaving.

We have not come, in the main, from some dark European morass where learning and culture never flowered. It was not ignorance that led us to reject our homes and our friends and the countries of our birth-and out of all lands to which we might have gone, to choose Canada. We, or our fathers, were actuated by those same impulses which, one or two or three centuries earlier, had led the forebears of hon. members, whether they speak English or French, to make this same venturesome, sometimes desperate, move from an old world to a new, to escape from drudgery without hope of security, hunger bom of social injustice, religious faith without the freedom to practise it, democratic idealism ruthlessly suppressed by the despot.

And we did not imagine that we were exchanging this for streets of gold and untold wealth when we asked admission to Canada. We knew only that here was a land where a man could call }iis soul his own, and with hard work could see that his sons and daughters had a better start in life than he, and, with a bit of extra luck, could approach old age in dignity and security. So we made our choice, and gambled our lives and those of our families-and by and large we won. Not without pain were the deep-grown roots of generations wrenched from the familiar soil;

but mercifully soon, we found, new roots were taking hold in new, far more nourishing clay than ever we had known. We settled fairly easily, at least the younger of us did, into the new scene as gradually the old one faded. We became, in our own thinking, Canadians in all but citizenship, and we were eager for the day when that final proof of right and liberty would be added. That day is near at hand.

Canada was giving us a new life-what had we to give Canada? We brought to her our brawn and our skill; new Canadians helped till the unbroken soil and build the factories and dig the ditches. They sought to contribute to the new land the best of the national cultures they brought from the old. Was that enough? No; for there remained loyalty. Those of you who know the new Canadian will know that he has been inclined to attach to his Canadianism, to his loyalty to his adoptive country, that same fanaticism which the proselyte shows toWard his adoptive faith. To him the title of citizen is something to be proudly worn, a recognition of his own love for this new country of his, an earnest of his determination to serve it-to serve it and to die for it if need be. There is no one of us who has returned from this latest war who does not carry with him the remembrance of the young men with non-Anglo-Saxon, non-Gallic names who lie beneath the temporary markers in the shallow, roadside graves of a half-dozen fronts.

That lias been the concrete response of the new Canadian to that inward urge toward an expression of gratitude to his country. That has been the response of most-but I would never suggest it has been the response of all. There have been those whose loyalty has wavered, who have imagined, in their confusion and in their woolly thinking, that there is a higher loyalty than that to Canada; who have not rated their acquired citizenship on so exalted a level as most of us have placed it. Recently we have been shocked to our very roots when we have had to face up to unpleasant realities which upset our comfortable and complacent thoughts and habits. There is no need to be alarmed. There is no point in hysteria, and there is no reason for losing our perspective. We have been tough with our enemies from without. We only need apply the rule of law in order to be tough with our enemies from within. That is what the law is for. But may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a degree of blame must be shouldered by ourselves as well as by others.

How dearly does the Canadian born citizen value his birthright? How far have we gone in creating in the mind of the world a knowledge that Canadian citizenship is a distinct

Canadian Citizenship

and valued asset? How far, in brief, Have we gone toward becoming a nation, toward offering to these new Canadians a symbol to which they can attach the loyalty and gratitude which wells up within them? There have been those of us who have been inclined to scoff at the forthright American expressions of . loyalty, at their reverence of the flag, at the idolatry towards their constitution, the salute to Old Glory, and the hand-on-heart recitation of the oath of allegiance. But on the grim testing ground of this latest war did not this schooling in loyalty pay off in the solidarity by which Smith and O'Mallory and McCrea and Cohen and Russo and Schmidt and Svensen mingled as Americans, mind you, without distinction as to grandparents or parents or as to their own native nationality? We Canadians, too, had that same deep democracy overseas, but we have not approached it at home.

We have no flag of our own to salute. We have no citizenship of Canada to proclaim boldly when our nationality is asked. Too often we have heard the assurance given to Americans, "No, you must not mistake us for the British," and the caution delivered to the British, "You must not confuse us with Americans." We have not shouted proudly from the housetops the proclamation that we are Canadians, a nation as distinctive as any that ever came down the pike of history, an up and coming nation, with the unique ability to get along with our neighbours and to pick a fight with none. A proud nation which when its own freedom and that of its friends became imperilled threw into the fight every man and woman it had available and still .had enough left over to become the third greatest producing country in the world.

We have not realized our own greatness. We travel in the strange, conflicting shadow cast by our mother and by our neighbour, and somehow we still refuse to come out into the warm sun of the world's acclaim. Sometimes we actually seem ashamed of being Canadians. So little have we thought indeed of the rights and privileges of our citizenship that we have disfranchised some of those whom we have accepted into our community. You may ask, "Disfranchised them-why?" Because out of the welter of national origins that goes to make the country we dream of there have been some who sprang from countries which currently were our enemies. We did not do it once; we did it twice. Do we treat citizenship so lightly that those who were born to it are apathetic toward it, and that some of those who have acquired it can be stripped of it without inquiry into their loyalties?

[Mr. Crell l

Let me say a further word about loyalties. It is well that we look to the structure of our own nest before we inquire too deeply to see who has fouled it. Loyalty is a coin with two sides. On the obverse is the attachment of the citizen to the state; on the reverse are the service and inspiration- which the state gives to the citizen. I have no use for traitors or for those who accept the protection and benefits of the state and then sell it down the river. I entertain no belief that loyalty can be divided, so much to the state and so much to another organism. To me, as to other members of this house, treachery in all its forms is despicable, and the oath of allegiance is not double talk.

But have we gone sufficiently far in creating or perhaps formalizing that Canadian nation which will have a citizenship and a flag as its symbol? I do not suggest bolting away from the empire-far from it; but I do suggest the creation of an entity in which the Canadian by birth will find pride and the Canadian by choice will find inspiration. I suggest the recognition of a nation newly come of age but already sufficiently mature to accept proudly its high place in the world and to use its newly won prestige in the universal cause of peace. A nation to be proud of, a nation which will hold the loyalty of all whom it accepts within its citizenship.

I suggest also that we call our people Canadians and forget that destructive hyphen, we are so wont to use. Surely after all thesq years we are no longer English or Irish or French or German or Hebrew or Ukrainian Canadians? Surely the people of these national backgrounds need no longer huddle protectively among others of the same descent, keeping alive their immigrant ways and customs only because they have not been accepted into the larger community which apparently is not yet ready to avow itj, Canadianism.

Surely the time has come for us all to eradicate that sense of domestic isolation? Surely the time has dome for us to eradicate the hyphen? Above all, from the date this bill is proclaimed there should be no longer new Canadians or- old Canadians-we all belong. I think the minister should undertake an intense educational programme to deal with languages, history and government so that Canadian citizenship may be appreciated, so that it may be known exactly what it implies; that citizenship means ninety per cent of interests that we have in common comes ahead of the ten per cent of the things that divide us. It should be known that citizenship is not only a challenge, that it is an achieve-

Canadian Citizenship

ment; that not only is it a responsibility, it is a privilege. It should be known that no man can be a citizen of a country without first being a citizen of a community, that no man can be a citizen of the world without first being a citizen of a country. How can we hope to understand the problems of other people and take an intelligent attitude toward them unless we first develop techniques and the willingness to understand one another here in Canada?

It is time we awakened to the greatness of our country and called a holiday on hatreds, both racial and religious, which are attacks on the hopes of a free people, and attach a real and important value to the very fact of Canadian citizenship as created by this bill. Surely the time has come for us to stop our damning of the many for the acts of the infinitesimal few? I say to the house that if we, as other countries, have at times produced Catilines, we have in turn produced many Ciceros.

This Canadian soil is hostile to ersatz Canadians and recognizes no changing styles in loyalty. We must dedicate ourselves anew to creating in this country a Canadian unity which will meet hostile challenges from within without having to abandon basic freedoms in order to meet that challenge. The time has come for us to dispense with the soft, apologetic Canadianism which has been so familiar to. us. The time has come for us to build up a conditioned citizenship that can do a long march, sleep on hard ground, go on short rations and still be ready to go into action with a deep, genuine faith and loyalty.

This twentieth parliament I feel, will not only give life to a Canadian citizen but present him with a flag and set aside a day to celebrate the occasion. I hope he has much -to celebrate.

Mr. ALAN COCICERAM (York South):

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much time in discussing this bill, but as one born in the British isles I wish to state my reactions to the bill, especially those sections which will affect British subjects in the days to come if this bill passes.

I should like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) I came to. this country in 1913 when many immigrants were cording to Canada from the British isles. I was preceded by three of my brothers and other members of my family, and within a few months of coming to Canada I and my brothers and a great many thousands of other young Englishmen who had come Out to Canada found ourselves in the Canadian

army. We were proud to serve in the Canadian army, and if the Secretary of State will take the trouble to look up the figures of the early enlistments in the great war of 1914-18 he will find that the great majority of those who served in the first and second Canadian divisions were men born in the British isles who had immigrated to this country shortly before the war. When I listen to members of this house belittle men such as myself who have come out to this country and have paid the price for being a citizen of Canada I wonder what the score is.

One must remember that when we left this country in 1914 and early in 1915 we were all Canadian soldiers. We wore the Canada badge on our shoulders as did the soldiers of the past war, and I consider that those men together with men of all races and creeds who served by their side in the famous battles of the war of 1914-18 helped to make Canada the great country that it is to-day.

The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has dealt with those sections of the bill which will be applicable to British subjects who come to Canada from other parts of the empire. I think it is a shocking thing that the Secretary of State should put British subjects from other parts of the empire who come to Canada to the trouble and humiliation to which they will be subject under this bill. The Secretary of State proposes that British-born subjects coming to Canada from other parts of the empire shall go through the naturalization courts, and not only that, but they shall be compelled to take an oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King. May I point out to the Secretary of State that a British-born subject owes his allegiance to His Majesty the King and it is an indignity to compel him to reaffirm his allegiance to the king as this bill provides. I object to that very much. I have no objection to the Secretary of State compelling subjects 'of the British empire to take an oath as a citizen of Canada, but they are already subjects of His Majesty the King and I see no reason to make them reaffirm their allegiance. I would ask the Secretary of State if this matter was dig-cussed with other parts of the British empire?

Mr. MARTIN:

Yes.

Mr. COCKERAM:

Because it seems to me that the Secretary of State is making fundamental changes in the*status of British subjects the world over. British subjects coming to Canada will have definite restrictions placed upon them by this bill, whereas Canadian subjects going to other parts of the British empire will have privileges which those coming to this country will not have. For instance, a Cana-

6%

Canadian Citizenship

dian subject can go to England and after a year's residence there he is to all intents and purposes looked upon as a citizen of the British isles. The same thing is true of other parts of the British empire. I would ask the minister what he intends to do to clear up this situation. Is he going to leave it in the position that British subjects coming to Canada are treated in one way, whereas Canadian citizens going to other parts of the empire will get preferential treatment over British subjects coming to Canada?

Mr. MARTIN:

Does my hon. friend want me to answer the question now?

Mr. COCKERAM:

I would prefer to continue at the moment.