Putting up a straw man.

Mr. COCKERAM:

I have no objection to having the minister answer now.

Mr. MARTIN:

This bill in its present form has not only commended itself greatly but so great an impression has it made upon those charged with this matter in the United Kingdom that they propose to use it as a model for future legislation in that country.

Mr. COCKERAM:

Then may I suggest that if it is to be used as a model we should make it a model one hundred per cent perfect.

It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that certain sections of this bill are the thin end of the wedge in loosening the ties of empire of which most of us are so proud. In that regard the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret), speaking on Friday last, made the following statement as reported on page 591 of Hansard:

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 might say so, I am myself progressively conservative.

He was referring to the section which says that a "Canadian citizen is a British subject". I wonder if that little warning thrown out by the hon. member for Outremont does not mean that at some time in the future the Secretary of State and his following will see that that section is eradicated for all time.

Mr. MARTIN:

It was the present Secretary of State who put it in. T think my hon. friend wishes to be fair.

Mr. COCKERAM:

But there is an opening to take it out. Further on in his speech the hon. member for Outremont said at page 595 of Hansard:

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 they, 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.

What a ridiculous statement that those of British descent residing in Canada have made no positive act of Canadianism! I would point out to the hon. member that no group in this country have been greater Canadians than those who, in the three wars which have taken place since the turn of the century, have been willing to leave this country to fight its battles and to give their blood, and if necessary their lives, for the cause of Canada. It is a well known fact that these forces have been comprised in the main of Canadians other than French-Canadians. When we are talking about being Canadians, wre should compare those who are willing to fight the battles of their country with those who have displayed reluctance to do so.

I wish to speak for a few moments about the naturalization courts. The minister, as a lawyer in the city of Windsor, has had some experience of these courts. I ask him, if he were a British subject coming from some other part of the empire, would he like to stand in line and await his turn, possibly for months on end, when he knows that the whole time he is a British subject and that becoming a Canadian is a matter of formality only.

Mr. MARTIN:

Is that the way it is to

be done?

Mr. COCKERAM:

I do not know. I

think so. I am going to make a suggestion. If the purpose of this bill is nationalization and not naturalization of people who are already British subjects, and the minister intends to force this section through, I suggest to him that he make it possible in the bill now before this house for British subjects, after one year's residence in Canada, to apply to the clerk of the naturalization court and thereby take the oath of allegiance to Canada, an allegiance already possessed with the exception of the formality of declaration. This will, I believe, clarify the point that a citizen can be a Canadian and a British subject at one and the same time.

I believe that this can be made a great bill. The strength of Canada is in the unity of its people, and I believe that we should

Canadian Citizenship

be frank with one another, that we should get together and have an act which can be accepted by a majority of the people.

Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, during the course of

this debate the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) posed the question, who is asking for this bill? That question ran like a refrain through all his speech. He said that he had tried to find out in Toronto who was asking for the bill and had been unsuccessful. He stated that it was a belief of his that the bill had been asked for by only a few people, almost all from one province. Had the hon. gentleman gone beyond the confines of Toronto and of Ontario he would have found that the great majority of the people in this country want this bill. The error contained in that belief of his is matched only by the additional error when he said that most of the people who came from Europe are opposed to thhs bill. Again I say, had lie known Canada he w'ould have known how wrong that statement was.

The hon. member for Broadview proved too little, but I think the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) tried to prove too much. That gentleman has drawn a certain amount of fire to-day from hon. members on my right. I do not join with them. I certainly do not agree that he scolded the house. He spoke objectively and fairly and he presented to us his ideas. With some of them I disagree. He said that there are many more whose tongue is French who can speak English than there are those whose principal tongue is English and who also speak French. The ratio, he pointed out, is about ten to one. Perhaps there is a reason for that, and that reason certainly does not include any slur upon one of the official languages of Canada. But in the western stretches of this country there are many of us who have little opportunity of learning French, practically none to talk with in French, little chance to read or 'write in French, and the people will not, unfortunately, go to the trouble of learning a language if they find no opportunity at all of using it. Furthermore, may I say this; as far as we in the C.C.F. are concerned I think the majority of us, if not all of us, when we were asked that question in the census, "Can you read, write or speak French?", answered in the negative. Perhaps we were unduly modest. Certainly most of the members of this party in the house, while we may not understand and appreciate every word which is spoken in speeches in French, do grasp the gist of the argument; certainly most of us can read French papers

with some comprehension. Perhaps we have not the temerity of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), and I congratulate him on it, in rising in his place in this house and giving a speech in French, but I think before this session is over some of us may have done the same.

The hon. member for Outremont went on to emphasize the efforts made by the Frenchspeaking population to understand its Englishspeaking compatriots and the lack of cooperation given in the other direction. I am sorry he said that. Had he been acquainted with western Canada he would have realized that there we have a great realization of the problems and aspirations of the people of Quebec. I think we have a greater knowledge of them than perhaps the people of Quebec have of our hopes and fears on the prairies. I express this hope too: I should like to see members of parliament from the eastern parts of Canada travel through to western Canada, and they will find there a Canadianism second to none in this country. Because we come from the west does not mean that we do not have devotion or loyalty or a desire to serve our country; and the impression which was given in the speech of the hon. member for Outremont was precisely that.

Then he went on to say, is not a complete attachment to the soil true Canadianism? I do not think so. I think it is part of Canadianism, certainly, but we cannot divorce Canada and Canadianism from its people. To me true Canadianism must have a profound regard for the conditions under which Canadians live. True- Canadianism cannot exist where there is malnutrition. It is not seen in sickly children. It can no more live in slums than can democracy. True Canadianism is not realized where many of our people are poverty stricken and where the vast majority have no economic security. True Canadianism will find its highest expression when we have eradicated these evils from our country. Then, indeed, we shall not need to talk of lack of patriotism, for never does patriotism burn brighter than in a country whose principal concern is the alleviation of human suffering, the constant improvement in the conditions of the people and the maintenance of equal civil and political rights for all.

It has been argued during this debate that we are a nation; that we are not a nation. I myself think that as yet we are not a natiqn. It is true that we have the right to appoint our own diplomatic representatives abroad. It is true that as Canada we can sign treaties, as Canada we can join inter-

Canadian Citizenship

national organizations such as UNO, as Canada we can declare war or maintain neutrality as we see fit. But we are not a nation so long as we are dependent upon an external power for the right to amend our own constitution; we are not a nation so long as we are dependent upon external courts to have the last say as to what our civil law shall be. I hope to see this government rectify these omissions before the twentieth parliament of Canada is finished. I hope to see, too, a Canadian flag, but I do not want to see a Canadian flag which is reminiscent of those things which have divided us in the past; I want to see a uniquely Canadian flag.

There are certain things in this bill which I approve. Naturally, as a member of the C.C.P. I approve the principle of it. As a Canadian I approve the principle. I am especially glad to see that the minister is going to take power at last to instruct our immigrants in the matter of democratic responsibilities and privileges. I only wish that he would go farther and take the power to instruct Canadians in thes^ same privileges and responsibilities; for he has the tools at his hand. Within his department there is a citizenship branch; it is small just now but one which, I hope, will grow. Within the government, belonging to the people qf Canada, we have the national film board. I should like to see the citizenship branch cooperate with the national film board and use it through audio-visual education, with leaflets and pamphlets and speakers going all through the country telling Canadians just what Can-adianism really is. We have the means; we have the trade unions; we have the farmers' organizations, the cooperatives, the cultural societies in this country, and our people are waiting for that sort of message.

While I approve that I cannot approve another section which makes explicit, discrimination in citizenship. Already the government has decided that there are to be two classes of citizens, those who apparently are genuine citizens and those who, at the same time, for reasons which are not always good, can lose their citizenship. I object to that. I feel that I am as good a Canadian as the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin). I may differ from him politically; I undoubtedly do-

Mr. MARTIN:

Perhaps you are a better citizen than I am,

Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):

application form of Wartime Housing Limited for soldiers who fought overseas to give us a chance to live. Any soldier who has fought for Canada and who wants one of these wartime houses has to state what his nationality is and what his religion is. How does the government justify that sort of action with its protestations of the past?

Mr. MARTIN:

Would the hon, gentleman send that form to me? I should like to see it.

Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):

I certainly will; I shall send it now.

These men battled for Canada not on the basis of racial origin or their religion,. They fought as Canadians and it is as Canadians that we should recognize them. That is one pL-the things they fought for.

V When we brought this matter up before the city council in Winnipeg the Winnipeg Tribune in an editorial on July 19, 1945, said this:

How can we reasonably expect wholehearted assimilation into the national life of Canada on the part of peoples of many origins if the official attitude continues "to be one which gives the appearance of being bent on segregation? Canada needs Canadians, not hyphens. Insistence on hyphenation seems to be firmly entrenched in the official mind.

Yet here again we find this newspaper, which took umbrage at these words, including in its own applications [DOT] for employment the same request: "What is your nationality? What is your religious denomination?" If these newspapers are sincere, then I suggest that they strike these words from the application forms. They are used either for discriminatory purposes or they are of no use to them at all. But discrimination goes farther and strikes much deeper than these examples I have given of business practices. I have drawn to the attention of the house before the plight of certain, minorities in this country. I have spoken of the Jewish people, and none has been more cruelly persecuted by the Christian world in the last two thousand years. They are still suffering all over the world. It still appears to me that anti-Semitism is on the increase. Anti-Semitism, racialism of any type is one of the most deadly enemies of .any democratic community. It not only hurts those against whom it is directed but warps and twists the minds of those who .practise it; yet we find it again in the government service, in the department of immigration; we find it in the allegedly cultured places in this country, in universities such as McGill and Toronto. I am glad to say that racial discrimination has ceased in the university of Manitoba, but we must never rest until we have wiped it out from these other universities and given'to the

Jewish people the same rights and the same privileges that every other Canadian citizen has.

Then we have another minority group, those who are of German origin. On September 19, 1939, the Prime Minister said in this house:

I ask, above all, for a broad toleration. I was glad to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) make that plea, not only on behalf of citizens here in our own country who belon" to the two great races, but as well on behalf of those of German descent, who also are citizens of our country.

Yet during the war this government, at the head of which is the man, who made that statement, discriminated wretchedly against those of German origin. Those who came to this country from Germany after 1922 were compelled to report to the mounted police, some every month. Like criminals they were compelled to have their finger-prints taken by the mounted police. I know one man, a German by birth, a Canadian by adoption, who had two boys. One of them received a medal for gallantry overseas as an officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force. His second boy died fighting for Canada; yet every month that man had to report to the mounted police. How does the government justify that conduct in view of its expressions of virtue? I know of other cases. I can think of one young lad who fought for three years for Canada, whose people have been in this country for four generations, but because his name was German he was denied the right to work. Yet last session this house accepted the united nations charter, and to what did we pledge ourselves? We said:

We are determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and the equal rights of men and women.

How does the house intend to put those words into operation? That is one thing we should be considering seriously now. Then we have those of Ukrainian and Polish descent who were brought to Canada by the thousands by the railroads and unceremoniously dumped on the most barren and rocky ground in the west. The hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) said the majority of the people of Quebec feel that they are the true settlers of this country. I would suggest to him that he go to western Canada, where he will find people who also believe they are the true settlers of this country. We do not say we are better than other Canadians; we merely say that we are as good. These people have made a garden out of what was practically a desert As a memorial to their labour and toil

Canadian Citizenship

Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):

Mr. Speaker, the majority of those who have spoken in this debate have been men born in this country. Forty years ago, in the spring of 1906, I left England to take up residence in Canada. Had the phrase been coined at that time I should have then been called a non-Canadian British subject. It is a phrase used in this measure. Perhaps it is a somewhat cumbersome one, and the minister might wish to follow a procedure frequently followed in the army, and refer to that group of people as N.C.B.S.

When I left the old country I was the product of the ordinary English public school. By present standards I do not suppose my education was considered high. I was well grounded in history. I had a keen interest in games; perhaps to my love of sports can be attributed the root of a desire I have to compromise. Sometimes I think that in your

Canadian Citizenship

position, Mr. Speaker, you must regard sportsmen as those of a high order because, after all, you are a sort of glorified referee whose responsibility is to interpret to the house the rules of parliamentary fair play. *

I believe that my religious education was a sort of sentimental attachment to the school chapel. I arrived here in Canada, and went at once to the western province of Alberta. There I arrived in a strange world. In that country were groups of people of many nationalities. I remember well in my neighbourhood a group of Icelandic people, and other groups of Welsh, American, English, Swedish, Norwegian, and down-east Canadians.

I lived in Alberta for some considerable time before I realized that there was anything else but a down-east Canadian. It was not mentioned in disrespect, but those Canadians in Alberta forty years ago were regarded as immigrants, in exactly the same w7ay as I was regarded as an immigrant. They were settlers. It was a strange world into which I was inducted-and inducted not as a Canadian but as a westerner.

I wanted to be one of the gang, and therefore went out and bought myself a pair of chaps and a wide-brimmed hat. I became a westerner, and remained such until I went overseas during the first great war. It was on the slopes of Vimy ridge I first became a Canadian. I do not say I should not like to have become a Canadian before that date, Hut it had scarcely occurred to me that there was such an organization.

As I say, I -wore the garb of the people of western Canada, and because of that, with the additional fact that I wore a Stetson hat, I was considered one of them. Had there been a more dignified method of welcoming me into the family of Canada I should have been delighted to follow it, by going before either a mounted police officer, a justice of the peace, or even a bishop. I should have welcomed whatever method might have been laid down.

But until now, so far as I know, no such methods have been laid down. As I have said, it was on the slopes of Vimy ridge, where I had the great honour of serving with a regiment recruited from the province of Quebec, that I first became a Canadian. I have been out west most of the time since the close of that war. No longer does one hear in western Canada the expression, "A down-east Canadian." One hears the expression, "Canadian." World war II has cemented that spirit of unity which, as far as I was concerned, was first sown when we fought on the slopes of Vimy ridge.

I believe that throughout this dominion there is a wide desire for Canadian citizenship to be defined and clarified. To me Canadian citizenship is not incompatible with being a British subject. After all, Canada is a nation in the British commonwealth, of nations and as such I can be a Canadian citizen and still feel that I am a member of the British commonwealth of nations.

As I understand the present bill, a nonCanadian British subject may reside in Canada and remain a British subject if he so desires, or he may express a desire to become a Canadian citizen and by carrying out certain formalities laid down in the bill he can become a Canadian citizen. Provision is made also for the Canadian citizen who is travelling among other nations of the British commonwealth of nations still to retain his British citizenship. Therefore, if a nonCanadian British subject comes here and desires to become a Canadian citizen, to my mind he undergoes an act of renationalization rather than naturalization. I think there is a difference. He still remains a British subject; he gives up his nationality of Englishman, Scotsman or Australian and becomes a Canadian by nationality. That would have met with my early desires as a boy, which I expressed a few minutes ago, to be permitted to become one of the gang.

The average non-Canadian British subject coming here who is born in one of the other nations of the British commonwealth has been steeped in the history of the commonwealth. He is familiar with the system of government and the customs of our institutions, customs and institutions which in the main are uniform in 'every nation of the British commonwealth of nations. He will have learned about magna charta, he will know of habeas corpus and the bill of rights, and he will know something of the statute of Westminster. He is of the breed and, being of the breed, he knows the breed; he is prepared to take the worth of the breed for granted. Those things which are closest to the hearts of many are seldom found readily in their mouths.

I referred to the willingness to. compromise. There is much in this bill that I can accept, but there is one point which I do find it difficult to take readily. I refer to the necessity of a non-Canadian British subject having to serve the same period of apprenticeship when he comes to Canada that must be served by a man who has not been brought up in the traditions, who is not familiar with the customs and the system of government of the British commonwealth..

[Mr. Pearkes.)

Canadian Citizenship

Mr. MARTIN:

As the hon. gentleman

knows, that is not a new provision; that is twenty-seven years old.

Mr. GREEN:

Oh, no.

Mr. PEARKES:

I am referring to the provision that a non-Canadian British subject must remain in Canada for five years. That is the point I am complaining about.

Mr. MARTIN:

The point I am making is that that is not a new provision. That has been in existence since 1919 in this country and in all dominions.

Mr. GREEN:

For one purpose only, the Immigration Act.

Mr. PEARKES:

Whether it is new or not, I still take exception to that clause. I regard this period of apprenticeship as a university course. A young man entering university may have to take the full course, but if he has certain academic qualifications which he has obtained elsewhere the period of the course may be reduced. He has to take the same examination and he has to go through the same procedure of receiving his diploma. I would look upon a non-Canadian British subject as a student entering this university of Canada who, because of the education he has received elsewhere in Canadian principles, will have his time of study in Canada reduced.

Perhaps there has been a certain amount of heat interjected into this debate and it might be well that' there had not been so much. I feel that no group in this house or in this country has a monopoly on loyalty to Canada. I love Canada as intensely as any native-born Canadian. I may not express this in exactly the same way, I may not give vocal ' expression to my thoughts perhaps as readily as some others, but I still love this country.

I rode the range and I have drunk deep of the, beauties of the prairies, of the sunsets, of the foliage of the fields. I have climbed the Rockies and I have been impressed with the grandeur of thbse mountains. I have wandered over the foothills and I have dreamed my proud daydreams. The proud daydreams I have dreamed have been, "What may I do to further the interests of this my country?" Therefore I do ask the minister to reconsider this five-year qualification clause.

I wish to speak of one other matter, the twenty-year provision in connection with those who have come to our country and who during that period have been unable to learn one or other of our languages. If they cannot speak English or French and have lived here for twenty years and are able to meet other requirements, such as knowledge of our customs and so forth, they are to be granted the

right of citizenship. I consider that provision just in so far as elderly people who are here now are concerned. We know that with the system of colonization used in western Canada groups of immigrants have been tempted to live together in certain colonies where they have not had the same opportunities of free intercourse as the people coming to this country now do have. Therefore I would say: Allow men or women who are over fifty years of age and who have lived here for twenty years, whether they have been able to learn English or French or not, to have the privileges of citizenship provided that they meet the other requirements.

But I am not sure that I can go so far as to say that the young man or the young woman who has lived here for twenty years and who in the last twenty years has not taken advantage of the opportunities which now exist for all people to learn our languages should be granted citizenship until he or she has learned one of those languages. I suggest that an age-limit might be considered at which they might be permitted to become citizens of Canada by taking advantage of that clause.

As for the future I would make it quite definite and clear that anybody coming into this country who wants to become a citizen will be expected to learn one or other or both of our languages and I would not allow that twenty-year clause to apply in the future.

Reference has been made by the member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) to Japanese residents of this country. I represent a constituency in which the Japanese lived in their thousands before the outbreak of this war. When war came with Japan those residents were removed as a protective measure because. there was a danger, of espionage or of hostile action being taken.- The people of my constituency have realized the difference that there is now that the Japanese have gone, and whether the Japanese are made citizens of Canada or not the people of Vancouver island and the people of the gulf islands do not want to see the Japanese moved back into those areas. I have had letters from all kinds of organizations, I have had letters from individuals, from farmers, from fishermen, from employers of labour, from churches and organizations all containing this plea: Do not let the Japanese come back to this territory after the war. They believe thkt the present government has given an undertaking that the Japanese will not come back. They do not want them to come back. They do not want the Japanese to live there for various reasons, the main reason being that they

Canadian Citizenship

are not assimilable. They have been engaged, I know, in all kinds of pusuits, particularly in fishing, and it has been suggested that if the Japanese do not come back we shall not be able to maintain the fishing industry. But that has been proved to be incorrect because the white man has taken over the fishing industry, and moreover it has provided an opportunity for employment for our own nati~e-born Canadian Indians, to step in and show their craft. They have been able to take over the industry of commercial fishing which the Japanese were exploiting before the war.

The people of Vancouver island do not want to see the Japanese come back. They expect the government to live up to the promises that that government made.

There are many high-principled people on Vancouver island and in other parts of British Columbia who wonder what shall be done with the Japanese. It goes somewhat against their grain to think that those Japanese, if they are Canadian citizens, must live in one part of Canada and not in another part or, if they are Canadian citizens, that they must be deported and sent back to Japan. But I do not believe that there is one-tenth of one per cent of the population of Vancouver island who want to see the Japanese come back. When the Japanese left they left in an arrogant manner. I should like to read an extract from a letter I received only to-day describing the manner in which the young Japanese males left just after Pearl Harbor:

They were in uproarious spirits, taking possession of the lounges-[DOT]

That' was in the Canadian Pacific boats.

-flirting heavily with some girls who were with them, gambling until stopped by the ship s officers, and behaving generally in a most unseemly manner. They embarked at every island port. The Japs here were Japs first and Japs to the last.

I do not know what the government's plans are to deal with this situation. I sometimes feel almost more sorry for the government than for the Japanese. It will not be an easy decision for the government to make. As a British Columbian I should feel quite happy if the Japanese were never coming back to the coast of British Columbia. As a Canadian-and I have been talking about Canadian citizenship-I cannot recommend to any group of Canadians that they should accept large numbers of these Japanese. As a British Columbian I must ask what steps are being taken by the government to prevent the Japanese from coming back to my country if they are moved to other places.

As I have already said, I would find it very hard as a Canadian to accept the principle that Canadian citizens must live somewhere and not be allowed to live elsewhere. It is a difficult and perplexing problem.

I could give advice to the Japanese clearly and definitely. To them I would say: Accept every opportunity to go back as quickly as you can to Japan whether you were bom there or not. Go back because in the long run you and your children will be happier back in Japan than you will be here in Canada distributed across this country or living in British Columbia, as the case may be. You will have to live in small minorities where there will be no chance of you or your children or your grandchildren assimilating with the rest of the population. What is going to happen? Small groups intermarrying, and the children and the children's children will deteriorate.

I think from the high Christian point of view now is the opportunity to repatriate the Japanese back to their homeland where perhaps they would be able to introduce to Japan, which has suffered so much, some of the western and Christian ideas that they have learned and in this way raise the standard of the other Japanese. They can do a great missionary work there. If they have not assimilated the ideals of western civilization while they have been here, they never will, and we should send them back.

So that, while I find it difficult to help the government out of its present predicament I must hold the government to its promises, and I feel like offering the suggestion to every Japanese that they should go back 'to' their land and that if they will do that the government will take care of their rehabilitation back in Japan or in some other island.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess